Death Penalty Abolition A Real Possibility?

As the Pueblo Chieftain reports:

The death penalty may be dead in Colorado if a preliminary vote in the House to repeal it on Wednesday holds up.

Five Democrats – including Rep. Ed Vigil, D-Fort Garland – joined Republicans voting against the measure, but it wasn’t enough to kill the bill that would repeal the death penalty, using money the state spends on prosecuting and defending capital crimes and transferring it to a special cold-case investigation unit…

The debate raged for nearly two hours on the appropriateness of using the death penalty, including rejecting an effort to place the question before voters.

The question even took on a religious tone, with supporters and opponents of the death penalty invoking the word of God to support their position.

“I believe it’s moral to take a life. I believe the society has dictated to us in the way we’ve developed says, when somebody deserves to die based on the heinous crimes they’ve committed, it’s OK for the state to put them to death,” said Rep. Mark Waller, R-Colorado Springs. “Society has said throughout the millennia that this is an appropriate and just and righteous sentence for the most heinous crime committers in the world. It’s happened since the times of David in the Bible.”

House Speaker Terrance Carroll, D-Denver and an ordained minister, said his religious beliefs, however, have taught him to believe the opposite.

We’re actually surprised to see this bill holding up so well, which despite the dramatic debate fodder it provides we’d say is more likely to be considered favorably for its potential cost savings in the current budgetary climate–however symbolic, every dollar you can shift away from the corrections money pit helps. Criminal justice reform activists, for their part, are thrilled that the bill is being seriously considered, and don’t really care what the motivations are.

But the biggest obstacle for this bill has been and remains Governor Bill Ritter, the former DA who has sought the death penalty repeatedly and by all accounts favors it. Of course Ritter is Catholic, and they’re supposed to “pro-life” at both ends, aren’t they? If the bill actually makes it to his desk, whatever he does with it will be a front page story.

67 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. cdsmith says:

    Of course, I’d rather see the death penalty abolished because, ya know, innocent people have been killed at the hands of our government, or because we don’t want the kind of government that inspires human rights organizations to oppose us… but if it has to be done via a budget debate, so be it.

    • Majority Moderate says:

      who was executed for a capital crime, in this Country, and later found to be innocent?

      • redstateblues says:

        Ruben Cantu was sentenced to death largely on the testimony of an eye-witness who put him at the scene of the crime.

        That witness, Juan Moreno, told the Houston Chronicle for its Sunday editions that Cantu was not the killer. Moreno said he identified him at the 1985 trial because he felt pressured and feared authorities.



        Sam D. Millsap Jr., the district attorney who handled the case, said he never should have sought the death penalty in a case based on testimony from a witness who identified a suspect only after police showed him a photo three times.

        And you know as well as I do that DNA evidence is basically new. Who knows how many innocent people may have been executed over the years who could have been saved if the technology was available 20-30 years ago?

        The fact that so many innocent people have been released from death row is evidence for–not evidence against–the argument.

        • MiddleRoadDem says:

          If you can name one in the past 50 years in Colorado, I’m with you.  Death penalty laws are state matters.

          • AristotleAristotle says:

            In Colorado there are only two death row inmates, and I believe only one other who has been executed since the death penalty was reinstated. Keep in mind anyone who’s death penalty conviction was thrown out when the Supreme Court first declared it unconstitutional in the 70s (like Charles Manson) did not have that penalty reinstated when the Supremes reversed themselves.

            Also, that 50-year figure seems really arbitrary. Has anyone gone back to reexamine the cases of people executed in the 70s or 80s, here or anywhere? What would be the point? It’s not like they can be set free now if they were wrongly convicted.

            No one needs to name a case where it happened in Colorado to make a fair point.

      • Jambalaya says:

        …the key is to execute people before they are exonerated

  2. Raphael says:

    who the other 4 Democrats were that voted with Vigil against the bill?

  3. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    “Death to the death penalty.” Can’t the death penalty opponents just ask to have it locked up for life?

  4. mtnhigh says:

    If the taking of a life is morally wrong, then how can a society have a death penalty?  The ONLY difference between a “criminal” taking a life and a “state” taking a life is that when the state takes a life its citizenry has anonymity.  

    Taking a life, either by the hand of the criminal or the hands of us, the state, IS WRONG!!!

    Death is not a suitable punishment because an eye for an eye truly will make the world go blind.  It is not a deterrent.  If it was, then why do people still kill?  It is simply revenge and it is wrong, immoral, and barbaric and must be stopped immediately!

    And before any of you a**holes spout that crap of “what if your mom was murdered by a criminal?” I will tell you that I would want the criminal to rot in jail.  Why?  Because killing is WRONG no matter if it is perpetrated by the individual or the state…

    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!!!

  5. MiddleRoadDem says:

    Just saying something is morally wrong doesn’t make it so.  What these 2 men in Colorado did was so beyond the pale, they have forfeited their own lives.  We’re not like in Texas or California with dozens on death row.  We have 2, and they deserve it.

    • ajb says:

      The death penalty is all about revenge. It’s not about deterrence.

      If you argue that what those two men did was morally wrong, so much so that they forfeited their lives, aren’t you arguing against the state using the same tactics?

      Personally, I’d rather save the money and see them rot in jail.

      • redstateblues says:

        I’m generally anti-death penalty, but what Sir Mario Owens did was so bad that he does deserve to die. Whether or not the state kills him doesn’t change that fact.

        • ajb says:

          But I’d prefer that be done if:

          - it prevents further harm

          - before they hurt others.

          Since the death penalty isn’t a deterrent and these guys have already harmed, then how does their execution benefit society? From a purely utilitarian perspective, I’d rather put the money to something positive.

          While Colorado has only a couple people on death row, other states have lots more. With all the people that have walked free from death row based on DNA testing years after the fact, we have absolutely no certainty that we haven’t executed innocent people.

          And despite those outcomes, DAs and prosecutors still resist DNA testing in old cases.

          And of course, wealthy people can afford good attorneys, so they rarely go to death row. Generally, people on death row are poor and uneducated. That’s hardly equal protection under the law.

          Anyway, there’s lots of reasons to oppose the death penalty, and only one to support it: revenge.

        • PERA hopeful says:

          because we all do.

          • redstateblues says:

            What he did was on par with terrorism in my book. Suppressing witness testimony through murder is beyond punishment.

            I’m anti-death penalty. I think this bill should be passed. That doesn’t mean I can’t be of the opinion that what Sir Mario Owens did is on par with some of the most horrific crimes in U.S. history.

            • PERA hopeful says:

              I agree that his crime did was particularly heinous because it was intended to strike at the very heart of the criminal justice system. If the death penalty is repealed, then a criminal like him has no incentive not to kill witnesses. Killing Javad Marshall Fields (and his fiancee, innocent bystander Vivian Wolfe) might have let him walk away from his murder of Gregory Vann. And if all he can get is life in prison without possibility of parole, then he would get no greater penalty for killing the witnesses than he would if he were convicted of the original murder. I understand that.

              I also understand that murderers serving life sentences have no incentive not to kill prison guards if there’s no death penalty.  I understand that there are probably a thousand more reasons why a death penalty makes public policy sense.

              I oppose it nonetheless.  If we execute a prisoner, we are murderers.  When the state prosecutes an accused murderer, the defense isn’t allowed to argue that the victim is a bad person who deserved to die.  That’s no defense to a murder charge.  There’s also no reason that it should be used to excuse the government murdering someone in my name, and yours, and all of ours.

      • Arvadonian says:

        Revenge is an acceptable emotion.

        I have zero problem with the death penalty if the person who is on the receiving end can be proven guilty.

        In fact, I’d like to see its use expanded.  Child molesters and rapists should also be eligible for the death penalty.

        I don’t like the idea that those who we lock up for life have better access to medical care and three square meals on the government’s dime than do thousands upon thousands of children who have done nothing wrong.  If prisions were shittier places in which criminals were to rot, then I might be more open to doing away with the death penalty.  

        As it is, we have monsters like Terry Nichols, responsible for the deaths of 168 men, women and children, filing a lawsuit because he doesn’t like the food he’s getting in prison.  I’d prefer he would have had a date with the needle along with Timothy Mcveigh…  

        • mtnhigh says:

          Are you kidding me?  Expand the death penalty?  By your “logic” where should it stop?  

          If you are willing to kill people via the power of the state for crimes that did not result in death in the first place, then can we, the state, kill those who raid retirement plans?  Can we, the state, kill those steal?  Can we, the state, kill those who jaywalk?  Where does it end?

          Revenge is an understandable emotion for an individual.  It is the WORST emotion for a state sanctioned judicial system!  If we based our judicial system on revenge is would crumble before the ink was dried on the legislation.

          the killing of another human being, by war, crime, punishment, passion or accident is WRONG!!!  

          • Arvadonian says:

            I do advocate for the expansion of the death penalty.  And since you brought it up, yes, I also advocate for stronger punishments for those who raid retirement plans and steal.  Death penalty?  I wouldn’t rule it out if the amount that was stolen was high enough and the number of victims were large enough.

            Jaywalking?  Not so much.

            I wholeheartedly disagree with you that killing is always wrong.  Murder is always wrong…killing is not.  And there is a difference.  There are all sorts of situations in which killing another person is justifiable.  For instance, we just saw three pirates killed off of the coast of Somalia who were holding an innocent person hostage…those killings were certainly fine by me.  It wouldn’t bother me one bit if they managed to kill a few more of them either.  

          • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

            When we say that some crimes are so awful that the person who committed them no longer meets our definition of a human being, that is a statement of what we mean by civilization.

            I am very comfortable with us as a society putting these animals down just as we would put down a rabid dog.

            As to you innane statement

            the killing of another human being, by war, crime, punishment, passion or accident is WRONG!!!

            unilateral disarmament is a certain road to slavery or death.

            • CJ says:

              that you or one of your loved ones ever get wrongly accused of a crime.

              THe good news, I guess, is that if you ever lose your job, you can sign up to be the ready, willing, and able executioner for the State of Colorado.  Then you will have plenty of opportunity to put down all those “rabid dogs,” many of whom were sexually abused, sodomized, beaten with hoses and pipes, introduced to the wonders of crack and meth at nice early ages, and abandoned to fend for themselves.  

              What method will you prefer to use?  Firing squad?  Hanging by the neck until dead, dead, dead?  Or are you more Edisonian, preferring the “humane” electric chair?  Or do you think they should “feel the steel?”

              I want to see you publicly volunteering to do the deed.  Of course, that would be premeditated murder, which, last time I checked my C.R.S., was a capital offense in Colorado (and thus eligible for the death penalty).  Oh, but I forgot, you’d just be killing animals who no doubt don’t have families, children, etc. (Sorry kid, your dad was an animal, so we put him down like a rabid dog…)

        • AristotleAristotle says:

          Hell, it’s probably at the root of W’s decision to go to war with Iraq.

          • Arvadonian says:

            is different than revenge against an innocent party.

            If the guilty party can be identified, I have no problem with revenge.  If we could have taken out Osama bin Laden, I would have had zero problem with taking him out.  

            Call it revenge.  Call it retaliation.  Call it justice.  Call it what you like.  I have no problem with swift, harsh punishment against those who violate the rights of others.  

            • AristotleAristotle says:

              Justice is the cold, logical application of punishment.

              Revenge is just getting back at someone and is anything but logical.

              Unfortunately few people understand how to keep the two separate.

              Now, this is an important distinction, and one many times more meaningful than the difference between murder and other kinds of killing. When one is seeking vengeance, one is not going to take the time to ensure that the object is actually the guilty party.

              If you don’t take the time to sort out this stuff and just call for blood, then blood you’ll get. But given how many death row inmates have been cleared of the crimes that put them there, we can safely say that scores or even hundreds of other wrongly convicted people were put to death. Calls for revenge were at the source of those injustices.

              Just so you know, I too support the death penalty for the worst offenders (and ONLY the worst offenders, the truly incorrigible – there’s no net benefit to society from executing every murderer, rapist, etc, and certainly no deterrent to those who haven’t but will commit these crimes). But I want to be 100% sure (99.999% won’t cut it) that they’re guilty, and I don’t have the confidence that our judicial system actually works to that extent. Until then, I’d rather that the worst continue to live than have one who isn’t guilty die.

              (Side note – your notion of what prison life is like strikes me as rather rose-colored. I’ve never heard of a person preferring a maximum security cell for freedom, regardless of that meaning a life on the streets for a lot of them.)

              • Einstein's dreams says:

                What Aristotle said – I’m not opposed to the death penalty in principle.  The Ted Bundys of the world are beyond redemption, and the death penalty is warranted for such criminals.  I do believe evil exists.

                But the Ted Bundys are few and far between, and most death penalty cases are far more mundane and far less sure.  As a practical matter, it is impossible for fallible human beings, no matter how well intentioned. to perfectly apply the death penalty, and the consequences of getting it imperfectly wrong are morally unacceptable.

            • CJ says:

              to be our new Judge Dredd!  Hell, maybe make him/her God!  Judge, jury, executioner!  It must be very reassuring to be so certain of every decision that you are not afraid of killing an innocent person!  I revel at teh awesomeness of your decisionmaking capabilities!

        • PERA hopeful says:

          I have often wondered if there was more to the Oklahoma City bombing than we know about.  Were there other conspirators?  Are there other unknown guilty people out there?

          Maybe we could have learned more from McVeigh, but now we can’t.  Maybe there was something McVeigh could have contributed to our world, even if it was just research into the thought process or mental deficiency that led him to commit his terrorist act.  We’ll never know now.

      • Karate Kid says:

        I think that’s what our criminal justice system should seek.  The death penalty is simply one more method to bring about justice.  And it’s appropriate in the most extreme cases.  I’m uncomfortable with the notion of “revenge” as a motivating factor for justifying a certain type of penalty.  Our criminal justice system should rise above emotional factors.  

        Mtnhigh, I respect your absolutism, but do you really think ALL killing is wrong?  Were our soldiers who fought to defeat Nazi Germany wrong?  If someone broke into your house and was about to kill a family member, would it be wrong to kill them?  I happen to be pro-life on most abortion issues and pro-death penalty in limited cases as a means of criminal justice.  I think my position is intellectually consistent.  The baby is innocent of any wrong-doing.  A criminal justice system that imposes the death penalty against an ax murderer has done so with justification.  The murderer is guilty.

        What I’m getting at is there is a distinction between killing (usually wrong, but not always) and murder (always wrong).

        • redstateblues says:

          Your first paragraph is actually sensible. It’s good to know When you’re not acting like a partisan shill you’re capable of having a sane discussion.

          The distinction between revenge and justice is an incredibly vital part of this discussion.

        • CJ says:

          is the ultimate form of premeditated, after deliberation murder.  Life without parole (in solitary confinement if necessary) is a more than sufficient method by which to protect society from violent, dangerous offenders.  I am pleased to see, though, that you have no doubt that there are NO possible instances of convicting, and executing, the wrong person (despite the evidence to the contrary).

        • mtnhigh says:

          Okay Karate, you got me there.  If it was me versus someone who wanted to kill me in a locked room with a gun in the middle full of bullets- I’d kill to save my life.  So thank you for pointing out the difference between killing and murder.  I accept your difference…

        • mtnhigh says:

          Okay Karate, you got me there.  If it was me versus someone who wanted to kill me in a locked room with a gun in the middle full of bullets- I’d kill to save my life.  So thank you for pointing out the difference between killing and murder.  I accept your difference…

      • Bob99 says:

        It’s not revenge, it’s punishment.  This is justice.  

        It’s completely and morally wrong to lock some one up in a 8×12 cell for the rest of their life.  How is it that locking them up is morally OK, but taking their life isn’t?  

    • Raphael says:

      that abolishing the death penalty will save money and other resources. There are moral arguments on both sides, however the practical arguments seem pretty uncontested: 1. the death penalty is not an effective deterrent & 2. it is more expensive than life sentencing would be.

      • Arvadonian says:

        the number of appeals.  That should take care of the costs.

        The system needs revision, no doubt.  Just not the way they are trying to revise it.

        • Raphael says:

          I think there are those who would say that doing so would sacrifice a degree of judicial thoroughness, but I don’t have any warrants to support that. Certainly it’s a possibility to entertain.

          Even if that isn’t the case though, it doesn’t answer the first part. If the death penalty isn’t a deterrent on crime, then it remains just a drag on services/resources, serving no practical purpose. So again, why spend money on something that doesn’t do anything?

          • Arvadonian says:

            a way to spend as much money on an innocent person as we are wasting on the dregs of society, then I can’t support keeping the most violent of them alive.

            Prison apparently isn’t a deterrent either, so why not let all criminals out?  We lock people up for everything from murder to theft and yet we still have murders and thefts….so prision is obviously not a deterrent.  

            Perhaps if prison were really “doing hard time” it would be a deterrent, but it isn’t.  Three hots, a cot, medical care, libraries, recreation rooms, television.  Granted it isn’t a Hyatt, but it is better than most of the motels you’d find on Colfax and is certainly better than what the average homeless person has to deal with.    

            • Raphael says:

              You are actually comparing prison conditions with motels on Colfax?

              I’m at a loss for words.

              I’ll try to give a better positive response when I get home and get some numbers and stuff in front of me, but in the meantime, I’m just wondering from where you get the impression that prison conditions are at all comfortable? Or, “better than most motels you’d find on Colfax” to use your turn of phrase.

              • Arvadonian says:

                From a number of my friends who work in the prison system.

                Which, if any, of the motels on Colfax come with free meals, medical care, libraries,and recreation rooms?

                I’d say the living standards for prisoners is significantly better than that of the typical homeless person who has committed no crime.

                • democritus says:

                  kill women (but not men) caught in the act of adultery? Why should we go by your standard of beliefs and not include all others?

                  Seriously though, you haven’t given any reason for doing this other than that it would apparently make you feel better. You certainly don’t seem to have thought through the ramifications to policy, international affairs, and racial relations. The big question is, why should we execute people? You haven’t given a compelling answer to this. I don’t care that it would make you feel better, I only care if it makes society a more livable, peaceful place. It would do the opposite.

                  For one, it’s not a deterrent. This doesn’t mean that we should let them go by any means, that’s a straw man. Keeping violent people locked up has a clear benefit to society. So what you propose would not help crime rates one iota.

                  For another, when our execution rates approached those of Middle Eastern authoritarian regimes, we would be treated as such by other nations. If the last eight years have taught us anything it’s that world opinion does matter. Not to mention that we can’t exactly tell China to democratize or stop imprisoning people for disagreement with the gov’t if we execute those that even they wouldn’t kill.

                  Finally, you propose that we cut costs by eliminating appeals, which would have the effect of killing innocents wrongly accused. Spend some time looking at the Wisconsin Innocence Project, PDs fall asleep, miss exculpatory evidence, etc. etc. and that’s with all of the appeals that we have now. Get rid of enough appeals to make the cost even out (which would mean almost all of them), and not only would you execute more innocent people, but also more innocent poor and minorities. Studies have shown that a white convicted felon will get a job interview when a black person with no jail time will not. This is not to mention the over-representation of minorities on death row. Racism is real. What you’re saying would set race-relations back a long way by killing innocent black men in a society that is already wary of our justice system.

                  You have a right to think whatever you’d like on the issue. You’re free to think that everyone in the industrialized world is crazy but you. Until you have a reason why we should execute people other than what you think of the crimes they’ve committed, I’m not hearing it.

                • CJ says:

                  until after you have actually visited a prison.

        • CJ says:

          the Constitution of the United States, then.

          F*** it, though, the wrong person NEVER gets convicted.  Who needs appeals?  And, like the Texas Supreme Court says, so what if the court-appointed lawyer slept through most of the trial?

    • Doppleganger says:

      She is a long time victim advocate and I believe member of the parole board.

      She also has the misfortune of being the daughter of of one of Nathan Dunlap’s victims.

      The unfortunate thing is I remember Nathan Dunlap’ name, but not Rebbecca’s mother’s name–this always bothered her about these horrible crimes.  The name of the villian lives on: their victims fade in to memory.

      She spoke in opposition to the death penalty at Dunlap’s sentencing out a Deep moral opposition to the death penalty that she shared with her mother.  I am not sure I would have had the moral fiber to maintain my beliefs if someone I loved had been killed: rage and vengeance are powerful forces.

      I dated her a few years after the trial and at the time I was still pro death penalty, but weakening significantly in my support because of the high cost of executions and an unwillingness to take irreversible actions without the certainty that came from a very robust appeals process.

      Since that time I have become even more leery of the government make decisions based on vengeance, because that is the only reason for a death penalty.  We can warehouse prisoners cheaper and it has no deterrent value. Government should not be in the business of vengeance.

      Thank you Rebbecca.

      • redstateblues says:

        I’m often amazed when the families of victims speak out against executing the person who took their loved one(s) from them.

        • parsingreality says:

          felt likewise.

          He even went and visited Tim McVeigh’s father before the execution.

          Far more courageous than following the desire for revenge.

          • redstateblues says:

            to see someone be able to put those emotions aside, and say “There’s been enough killing”. Very few things in life move me like that.

            It’s really a microcosm of what I think most people in the world wish the world was like. Being able to, not necessarily forgive, but come to a realization about an act of violence. Seeing the humanity in the people who try to hurt us, or their families, and taking a stand, is s supremely noble response to such heinous acts.

            Sometimes violence is inescapable, but I think the idea of being able to reach out to someone who was affected by the same act of violence that affected you, is what most people try to achieve.

            The people we’ve lost are gone, and nothing can bring them back. We can, however, try to strive for a world in which, not only is the death penalty made illegal, but in which it is no longer needed.

            • parsingreality says:

              If I had a choice of life without parole or execution, I’d choose the latter.  Well, maybe not an electric chair; whew, that must be horrible.  But gas, injection, firing squad, OK.

      • Jambalaya says:

        …I don’t think the opinion of victims’ families should be key to determining the appropriate punishment.

        • redstateblues says:

          Going back to the Sir Mario Owens case, I believe the mother of one of his victims was against the death penalty in Owens’ case. Prosecutors sought it anyway.

          But at the same time, don’t the families of the victims deserve to explain their opinion to the judge or jury before they begin deliberating the defendant’s sentence?

          • Jambalaya says:

            ….during the sentencing proceedings.  I believe the CO constitution speaks to this right.  I don’t question the victims’ families’ right to speak, but I do question the value of their testimony.  I think such testimony tends to inflame rather than to inform the decision-makers, who should not be guided by emotional reactions or by what they would want the punishment to be if their family members were hurt or killed.  That comes too close to vigilante justice, IMO.  

  6. CJ says:

    Ritter told a supporter at a campaign fundraiser in 2006 that, if a bill abolishing the death penalty made it to his desk, he would sign it–notwithstanding his personal support for the death penalty.

    It will be interesting indeed to see whether he honors that commitment.

    • redstateblues says:

      I couldn’t find a link, but I seemed to recall that he made that promise.

      If supporters of the death penalty moratorium continuously remind him of that fact, it’ll be a lot harder for him to veto it (or just not sign it.)

  7. Hugo O'conor says:

    Just out of curiosity, how many here are against the death penalty but support abortion?

    What about for the death penalty but against abortion?

    Seems odd, doesn’t it? You rarely find people who feel the same way about both issues yet both actions are taking a human life.

    For the record. I am for the death penalty but against abortion. At least those sentenced to the death penalty had a hand in their fate.

    • Arvadonian says:

      (Safe, legal and rare); pro-death penalty (quick, efficient and with greater frequency than is currently practiced)!

      • mtnhigh says:

        It must all be in the timing?

      • CJ says:

        let’s expand the death penalty!  I say mandatory for third-time felons–regardless of the felonies committed!  They had their chance.  I’m tired of their little excuses, like how they grew up in crack houses, never having met Daddy (’cause he was in prison), or how mom tricked in order to pay her dealers, or how Uncle Bob sodomized them repeatedly and how they got beaten with bats when they tried to tell their parents about it.  Fuck ‘em!  Plenty of people who went through that kind of childhood went on to be completely law-abiding.

        In fact, some misdemeanors piss me off, too!  How about (a) doing away with the right to trial by jury; and (b) instituting the death penalty for repeat misdemeanants?  Then we can be more like Singapore, which is apparently paradise!

    • PERA hopeful says:

      I oppose abortion but would not criminalize it.  There are better and more effective ways to reduce abortions, including education, access to contraceptives, and support for pregnant women who choose to give birth.  I favor all of those.

      I’m against the death penalty for many reasons, including the danger of taking innocent human life.  Capital punishment seems to me to be a worse act that decriminalizing abortion because it involves my government (and thus myself) in the act of killing.  If the government makes abortion legal, it is not out there performing abortions in my name; it is merely allowing women and doctors to make their own personal decisions.  The death penalty puts my representative in the room committing an act I believe to be murder.  That is morally reprehensible to me.

  8. Libertad says:

    Ya’ll know I oppose the death penaly, GP would have taken care of this prick.

    Allen Lee Davis (July 20, 1944 – July 8, 1999) was a convicted murderer executed for the May 11, 1982 Jacksonville, Florida murder of Nancy Weiler, who was three months pregnant at the time. According to reports, Nancy Weiler, was “beaten almost beyond recognition” by Davis with a .357 Magnum, and hit over 25 times in the face and head.

    He was also convicted of killing Nancy Weiler’s two daughters, Kristina (9, shot twice in the face) and Katherine (5, shot as she was trying to run away). Davis was on parole for armed robbery at the time of the murders.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.