Condemned Utah Killer Will Face Firing Squad
alivegirl
Posts: 124
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 37,00.html
(SALT LAKE CITY) — Utah is set to execute a convicted killer by firing squad in June after a judge agreed Friday to the inmate's request for the method, renewing a debate over what critics see as an antiquated, Old West-style of justice.
Ronnie Lee Gardner, 49, was given the choice of being killed by lethal injection or shot by a five-man team of executioners firing from a set of matched rifles, a rarely used relic that harkens back to Utah's territorial history.
(See the top 10 crime stories of 2009.)
"I would like the firing squad, please," Gardner told State court Judge Robin Reese Friday morning, after Reese told him his avenues for appeal appear to be exhausted.
Gardner, 49, was sentenced to death for killing an attorney 25 years ago during a failed escape attempt and shootout.
Of the 35 states with the death penalty on the books, Utah is the only one to use the firing squad as a method of execution since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976.
Two men have died in a hail of bullets since that decision: Gary Gilmore, on Jan. 17, 1977 — after famously uttering the last words, "Let's do it" — and John Albert Taylor on Jan. 26, 1996.
Oklahoma is the only other state that considers a firing squad an acceptable option, but by law would only use it if lethal injection was deemed unconstitutional. The state has never used the method.
The hearing Friday was conducted amid heavy security with several officers standing guard around Gardner and his attorneys. Gardner wore an orange jumpsuit and white shoes and his arms were shackled behind his back.
Gardner's attorney, Andrew Parnes, said an appeal is planned, but it was not immediately clear what type of appeal it would be. The judge set the execution for June 18.
Defense attorneys on Friday argued against signing the death warrant, saying a jury never heard mitigating evidence in the case that could have led it to decide against the death penalty. They also said to execute Gardner after so many years is cruel and unusual punishment.
Utah's death row inmates were for decades allowed to choose how they wanted to die. State lawmakers removed that choice in 2004 and made lethal injection the default method, though inmates sentenced before then still have a choice.
The repeal of the firing squad wasn't tied to any discomfort with the method itself. Rather, state lawmakers disliked the heaps of negative media attention that firing squads focused on the state, said Rep. Sheryl Allen, R-Bountiful, who twice carried legislation to change the law.
In 1996, more than 150 media outlets descended on Utah to cover Taylor's execution, painting the firing squad as an Old West style of justice that allows killers to go out in a blaze of glory that embarrasses the state.
"I was just hoping to end that focus," said Allen, adding that she's displeased with the prospect of another firing squad execution. "I fear that the proper attention will not be paid to the victims of the crime and the atrocity of the crime."
Still, lawmakers did not retroactively ban the firing squad out of fear that it would give condemned inmates a new avenue of appeal, she said.
Gardner is one of at least four of 10 men on Utah's death row who have said they want to die by firing squad.
Lydia Kalish, Amnesty International's death penalty abolition coordinator for Utah said her organization opposes the state's effort to see Gardner executed. But despite Utah's strong religious roots — it's the home of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — most here support the use of the death penalty.
"I think in Utah, when it suits their purposes, they go back to the Old Testament and the 'eye for an eye' kind of thing," Kalish said. "These people may be the worst of the worst, but if the best we can do is repeat the same thing, it's so obviously wrong."
Gardner was convicted of the fatal shooting death of Utah attorney Michael J. Burdell during an escape attempt and shootout at the old Metropolitan Hall of Justice in downtown Salt Lake City on April 2, 1985.
Although he was handcuffed and surrounded by prison guards, a female acquaintance slipped Gardner a loaded, long-barreled .22-caliber handgun in the basement of the building just before the shooting. He shot Burdell in the head, wounded a court bailiff and was himself shot in the right shoulder before being captured on the courthouse lawn as he tried to flee.
Regardless of the method, Gardner's victim would oppose executing his killer, said Ron Temu, a close friend of Burdell.
"Michael would not be happy at all. Michael would have fought against the death penalty. That's who he was," said Temu, 62, a Salt Lake City-area funeral director who knew Burdell through their membership in the Summum church.
A pacifist who was drafted into the U.S. Army, Burdell served in Vietnam but vowed to never use a weapon on another person, Temu said. After Vietnam, he dedicated himself to helping those who couldn't afford to hire an attorney and gave free legal advice on a radio talk show.
On the day of the shooting, Burdell was helping Summum's then-president Corky Ra secure legal custody of a church member with severe mental illness. Temu was at the hearing and ran down two flights of stairs to find Burdell when he heard shots had been fired inside the building.
Temu said he came face to face with Gardner and watched him shoot bailiff Nick Kirk. Gardner then chased Temu and Ra, yelling that they were to be his hostages, but never opening fire. They escaped. Temu later went back to find Burdell lying alone on the floor of a records room.
"I don't know what they are planning to do with Ronnie Lee Gardner ... that's a Utah thing," he said. "But as far as Michael is concerned, he already turned the other cheek, whatever brought the two of them together is done."
(SALT LAKE CITY) — Utah is set to execute a convicted killer by firing squad in June after a judge agreed Friday to the inmate's request for the method, renewing a debate over what critics see as an antiquated, Old West-style of justice.
Ronnie Lee Gardner, 49, was given the choice of being killed by lethal injection or shot by a five-man team of executioners firing from a set of matched rifles, a rarely used relic that harkens back to Utah's territorial history.
(See the top 10 crime stories of 2009.)
"I would like the firing squad, please," Gardner told State court Judge Robin Reese Friday morning, after Reese told him his avenues for appeal appear to be exhausted.
Gardner, 49, was sentenced to death for killing an attorney 25 years ago during a failed escape attempt and shootout.
Of the 35 states with the death penalty on the books, Utah is the only one to use the firing squad as a method of execution since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976.
Two men have died in a hail of bullets since that decision: Gary Gilmore, on Jan. 17, 1977 — after famously uttering the last words, "Let's do it" — and John Albert Taylor on Jan. 26, 1996.
Oklahoma is the only other state that considers a firing squad an acceptable option, but by law would only use it if lethal injection was deemed unconstitutional. The state has never used the method.
The hearing Friday was conducted amid heavy security with several officers standing guard around Gardner and his attorneys. Gardner wore an orange jumpsuit and white shoes and his arms were shackled behind his back.
Gardner's attorney, Andrew Parnes, said an appeal is planned, but it was not immediately clear what type of appeal it would be. The judge set the execution for June 18.
Defense attorneys on Friday argued against signing the death warrant, saying a jury never heard mitigating evidence in the case that could have led it to decide against the death penalty. They also said to execute Gardner after so many years is cruel and unusual punishment.
Utah's death row inmates were for decades allowed to choose how they wanted to die. State lawmakers removed that choice in 2004 and made lethal injection the default method, though inmates sentenced before then still have a choice.
The repeal of the firing squad wasn't tied to any discomfort with the method itself. Rather, state lawmakers disliked the heaps of negative media attention that firing squads focused on the state, said Rep. Sheryl Allen, R-Bountiful, who twice carried legislation to change the law.
In 1996, more than 150 media outlets descended on Utah to cover Taylor's execution, painting the firing squad as an Old West style of justice that allows killers to go out in a blaze of glory that embarrasses the state.
"I was just hoping to end that focus," said Allen, adding that she's displeased with the prospect of another firing squad execution. "I fear that the proper attention will not be paid to the victims of the crime and the atrocity of the crime."
Still, lawmakers did not retroactively ban the firing squad out of fear that it would give condemned inmates a new avenue of appeal, she said.
Gardner is one of at least four of 10 men on Utah's death row who have said they want to die by firing squad.
Lydia Kalish, Amnesty International's death penalty abolition coordinator for Utah said her organization opposes the state's effort to see Gardner executed. But despite Utah's strong religious roots — it's the home of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — most here support the use of the death penalty.
"I think in Utah, when it suits their purposes, they go back to the Old Testament and the 'eye for an eye' kind of thing," Kalish said. "These people may be the worst of the worst, but if the best we can do is repeat the same thing, it's so obviously wrong."
Gardner was convicted of the fatal shooting death of Utah attorney Michael J. Burdell during an escape attempt and shootout at the old Metropolitan Hall of Justice in downtown Salt Lake City on April 2, 1985.
Although he was handcuffed and surrounded by prison guards, a female acquaintance slipped Gardner a loaded, long-barreled .22-caliber handgun in the basement of the building just before the shooting. He shot Burdell in the head, wounded a court bailiff and was himself shot in the right shoulder before being captured on the courthouse lawn as he tried to flee.
Regardless of the method, Gardner's victim would oppose executing his killer, said Ron Temu, a close friend of Burdell.
"Michael would not be happy at all. Michael would have fought against the death penalty. That's who he was," said Temu, 62, a Salt Lake City-area funeral director who knew Burdell through their membership in the Summum church.
A pacifist who was drafted into the U.S. Army, Burdell served in Vietnam but vowed to never use a weapon on another person, Temu said. After Vietnam, he dedicated himself to helping those who couldn't afford to hire an attorney and gave free legal advice on a radio talk show.
On the day of the shooting, Burdell was helping Summum's then-president Corky Ra secure legal custody of a church member with severe mental illness. Temu was at the hearing and ran down two flights of stairs to find Burdell when he heard shots had been fired inside the building.
Temu said he came face to face with Gardner and watched him shoot bailiff Nick Kirk. Gardner then chased Temu and Ra, yelling that they were to be his hostages, but never opening fire. They escaped. Temu later went back to find Burdell lying alone on the floor of a records room.
"I don't know what they are planning to do with Ronnie Lee Gardner ... that's a Utah thing," he said. "But as far as Michael is concerned, he already turned the other cheek, whatever brought the two of them together is done."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Godfather.
no really bro think about it he killed a man and for 25 years the state or the fed's (us) have been housing this guy
and spending a ton of money on lawyers.... or at least sentence to life him and be done with it.
Godfather.
it cost more to keep them alive for 30-50 years,pluse it should be done with in a year of conviction.
but I'll tell ya...in my heart I don't know if killing is good for any reason,I just don't know.
I suppose if it were somebody I know and love (family) I would want the bad guy excuted a.s.a.p.
Godfather.
I think it's cheaper to give them life than to kill them. Too many legal ramifications on killing.
Plus, murdering someone back doesn't do anyone any good.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I agree but it seems so wrong that a convicted killer or rapist/molester be set free after 7-10 years
because of legal ramifications then do the same crime again,it's a tough call.
Godfather.
someone fucks with my family, i'd want them dead. as far as doling out a death sentence to someone goes, it should only apply if there's absolutely no doubt the person on trial for the crime is the one that did it (dna, crime caught on tape, multiple witnesses...)
That would depend on the circumstances and so forth. I highly doubt a repeat molesting-killing wacko will be back out after 7-10 years without the death penalty. A borderline manslaughter case where the offender show real signs of regret and do what he can to improve, well, 7-10 might be just right. That should be up to the courts to decide. The alternative to death sentence is really life anyway.
And rapists generally get very low sentences, sadly. Because in many cases it's word against word with no witnesses, the courts generally dont dish out as harsh punishments.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Problem is, type of evidence really doesnt cancel out the general doubt, ever.
Dna, can have gotten there in other ways.
Tape, depends on the quality etc
Multiple witnesses, well many wrong sentences have been set on that. Usually, the witnesses know what they saw, but that doesnt mean they ID the right person necessarily.
So I think no type of evidence in itself should warrant a particular punishment. And the doubt, always there for those who weren't there at the scene of the crime (and even for some of them). Since the doubt is pretty much ever present, and seeing as death is a very final sentence, that should be reason enough to avoid death sentences.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
i'm not talking about a shitty grainy tape, i'm talking crisp and clear. and if you have a handful of people id'ing the same person with no doubt in their mind...i'd believe them. dna, sure it could get there in other ways. so i guess i could possibly agree with you on that. but if you have a body with a ton of dna under their fingernails, multiple foreign hairs on their body, bodily fluids on or in them...come on, now. look at some of the west memphis 3 supporters, they're saying because a fiber that was found on one of the bodies automatically exhonerates the 3 that are currently in jail. if one fiber can make someone not guilty, then shouldn't a mountain of dna evidence be enough to prove guilt?
but like i said, if someone did something to my family and that crime warranted a death sentence and there was a crowd of people that saw it or it was caught on tape or a shitload of dna was on the body that never should have been there in the first place....you bet i'd want them to stop breathing. without any of that, throw them in a cell for life.
It's kind of morbid for me to consider which method I would choose, but if the lethal injection is anything like the stuff they used to knock me out for wisdom teeth surgery, then that would be my choice. Lucky for me I don't plan on killing any lawyers or cops (although I've yet to get married, so I'm keeping my options open).
Not only that but with DNA, DNA testing is done by humans in a lab, human error has to be factored in. Sure the chance of a mistake in a lab leading to wrongful conviction is probably small, but I am not sure it is small enough where it should be used to determine if a person should be put to death or not.
hopefully they do it more often
i vote a 357 magnum to the skull
swift and over
lights out for scum
zero tolerance
rapists, child molesters, killers... done with 'em
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
true, but if there's enough dna to be tested, i'd like to think they don't rely on just one test. i don't know for sure, but i would hope that they would take multiple samples of dna and test all of them to make sure they come to the same conclusion with them all.
You just gave a compelling arguement against the Death Penalty. In costs and time.
A Death Sentence automatically triggers the appeals process. The costs to put someone on Death Row are way more than giving him 25 to life because of these automatic appeals.
Had he been sentenced to a life behind bars, he would still require the incarceration costs and would have already served 25 years of his life term in the prison's general population.
Hail, Hail!!!