Should the murderess have been executed?

The first woman executed in the United States in five years was put to death at the Greensville Correctional Center in Jarratt, Virginia. She was put to death for arranging the killings of her husband and stepson over a $250,000 insurance payment. She was also the first woman in ninety-eight years put to death in the State of Virginia. Teresa Lewis, 41, who defense attorneys said was borderline mentally disabled, died by injection at 9:13 p.m. Thursday evening, September 23rd 2010.

Lewis enticed two men, Matthew Shallenberger, 29, and Rodney Fuller,27, through sex, cash and a promised cut in the insurance policy to shoot her husband, Julian Clifton Lewis Jr., and his son, Charles, as they slept in their beds on October 30th, 2002. Both triggermen were sentenced to life in prison where Shallenberger later committed suicide in 2006.

Lewis appeared fearful, her jaw clenched, as she was escorted into the death chamber. She glanced tensely around at 14 assembled corrections officials before being bound to a gurney with heavy leather straps.

Moments before her execution, Lewis asked if her husband's daughter was near. Kathy Clifton, Lewis' stepdaughter, was in an adjacent witness room blocked from the inmate's view by a two-way mirror. Lewis then said "I want Kathy to know that I love her and I'm very sorry." If she truly loved her, she wouldn’t have brought about the deaths of her father and brother.

Lewis’ supporters and relatives of the victims watched her execution at Greensville Correctional Center in Jarratt. Then, as the drugs flowed into her body, her feet bobbed but she otherwise remained motionless. A guard lightly tapped her on the shoulder reassuringly as she slipped into death.

The more than 7,300 appeals to stop the execution — the first of a woman in Virginia since 1912 — had been made to the governor in a state second only to Texas in the number of people it executes. Texas held the most recent U.S. execution of a woman in 2005. Out of more than 1,200 people put to death since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976, only 11 have been women.

The Lewis execution stirred an unusual amount of attention because of her gender, claims that she lacked the intelligence to mastermind the killings and the post-conviction emergence of defense evidence that one of the triggermen manipulated her.

Shallenberger, who reportedly wanted to become a hit man for the mob, said he had used Lewis to get money to fund a career as a New York drug dealer, in a letter to an ex-girlfriend, the Washington Post said.

Lewis' supporters also said she was a changed woman. They pointed to testimonials from former prison chaplains and inmates that Lewis comforted and inspired other inmates with her faith and the hymns and country gospel tunes she sang at the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women where she was long held.

It's amazing how people will reform themselves when facing death. But her life before the crime was committed was vastly different. Her father said she ran off to get married, then later abandoned her children and ran off with her sister's husband. Then she had an affair with her sister's fiance while at the same time having an affair with another man.

Lewis' life took a deadly turn after she married Julian Lewis, whom she met at a Danville textile factory in 2000. Two years later, his son Charles entered the U.S. Army Reserve. When he was called for active duty, he obtained the $250,000 life insurance policy, naming his father as the the beneficiary. This was a temptation for Teresa Lewis she couldn’t resist. She knew that both men would have to die for her to receive the insurance payout. She met at a Wal-Mart with the two men who ultimately killed Julian Lewis and his son. Lewis had begun an affair with Shallenberger and later had sex with Fuller. She also arranged sex with Fuller and her own daughter in a parking lot. The girl was only 16.

On the night before Halloween in 2002, after she prayed with her husband, she got out of bed, unlocked the door to their mobile home and put the couple's pit bull in a bedroom so that the animal wouldn't interfere. Shallenberger and Fuller came in and shot both men several times with the shotguns Lewis had previously bought for them. Charles Lewis, 25, died quickly, but her husband Julian, 51,his body riddled with lead pellets, was still alive when police arrived and moaned "baby, baby, baby."

It was that kind of woman who arranged to have her latest husband and his son murdered in their beds. It was that kind of woman that 12 jurors felt should die. It was the kind of woman that the judge who called her the mastermind behind the killings felt that she should die. It was that kind of woman that the courts that heard her appeal felt that she should die. It was that kind of woman that the governor of the state felt that she should die. It was that kind of woman that died on the gurney.

In 1980, while I attended the Sixth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders which was held in Caracas, Venezuela, nine countries brought forth a moratorium on capital punishment in which they asked that the over 100 nations in attendance put a hold on capital punishment for five years in order that an alternative could be sought.

After the spokesperson for the Abolition of Capital punishment spoke, in which he said his organization supported the moratorium, I was the next and final person to speak on the subject. In part, I said;

“My only concern about putting people to death for murders they have been convicted of having brought about by their own hand or the hands of others, is that an innocent person may be put to death.”

I recommended that a more suitable alternative would be natural life in prison with no hope of parole. I also suggested that the moratorium be ignored because if the death penalty is still on the books, there will be a greater desire by the citizens and government officials alike to work towards bringing the alternative about as soon as possible. The next day, the nine countries that brought forth the moratorium, withdrew it and as I had hoped for, countries soon after began sentencing convicted murders to prison for their natural lives without any hope of getting parole as an alternative to executing them.

Naturally, a question that must be on the minds of my readers is, “How do I feel about the execution of Teresa Lewis for arranging for the murder of her husband and his son?” Before I answer that question, let me deal with several issues that always come up in matters like this.

Let God award the punishment

The Bible says that we should not kill. Does that apply also to executioners who put to death criminals who murder innocent victims? Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Certainly, the decision as to whether or not a murderer should be put to death is in the domain of the people who govern us and not in God’s domain. Further, there are a great many people world-wide who do not believe in the afterlife so the suggestion that God should be the one who awards the punishment of murderers is rather moot, to say the least.

Should we execute murderers who are borderline intelligent?

The IQ of Lewis was 72. Many years ago I worked as a senior supervisor of mentally ill children in an institution. Most of the children were in the borderline category that I worked with. Borderline intellectual functioning is between 70 and 84. People in this category have adaptive function abilities such as daily living skills, which includes getting dressed, using the bathroom, and feeding oneself; communication skills, such as understanding what is said and being able to answer; social skills with peers, family members, spouses, adults, and others. But most of all, they do know the difference between what is right and what is wrong. The defence argued that she was also addicted to pain medicine. I don't see how that would have dulled her sense of right and wrong.

Teresa Lewis was 33 years of age when she arranged for the murder of her husband and his son and she knew that if the shotgun she got for the two men who were to do the shooting was used, it would bring about the deaths of her husband and his son. She knew that if both victims died and she wasn’t found responsible for their deaths, she would in inherit a quarter of a million dollars.

She also knew that her accomplices could be partially enticed to commit the crime if she offered her own daughter as a sexual partner as part of the payment for the deed.

As far as I am concerned, that argument that she couldn’t have fathomed just how serious the crime was because she was borderline intelligent is about as pointless as trying to light a cigarette while in the 400-mile fringes of a tornado. It ain’t going to happen. Further, she must have understood what she had done was wrong because she pleaded guilty to the crime.

Was she reformed after her conviction?

It was suggested that she became a good person after she was placed in a prison. This reminds me of that old adage that there are no atheists in foxholes. She wasn’t executed because she was a good person. She was executed because she was an evil person. Anyone who kills his or her spouse and the spouses’ child is evil, of that there surely cannot be any doubt in anyone’s mind. Being a good person later while in prison doesn’t erase the evilness that existed before they were arrested.

Should she have been sentenced to natural life in prison?

Let me tell you of three cases in which two of the murderers were sentenced to life and then released and where the third had remained in prison from the time of his original arrest.

The first case took place in Chicago in the 1920s. Two men murdered a 14-year-old boy to see what it was like. Clarence Darrow was their lawyer and he convinced the judge that they shouldn’t be executed but rather they should be sent to prison for life. One of the men was murdered in prison and eventually the other was released. He spent the rest of his life working as an orderly in a hospital and committed no further crimes while he was free.

The second man was from Quebec and he murdered two young boys and was sentenced to death. His sentence was commuted and years later, he was released. He then killed two more young boys and again he was imprisoned. This time he died in prison because his fellow inmates killed him.

The third man was sent to prison for life for murdering a man and his girlfriend and later, another woman. While in prison he murdered another man. The judge sentenced him to 3,000 years for the murder of the fellow inmate. He appealed saying that a 3,000-year sentence was ridiculous. The appeal court agreed and reduced the sentence to 1,500 years.

My conclusion

For most of us born in this world, life is a blessing. No one should take it from us or our loved ones or anyone else in order to better their own lives. Such people are evil and in my opinion, they have forfeited their right to exist as living human beings. We put down wild dogs and we should do the same for evil murderers. To continue to feed these evil people and let them breathe the same air as we do is an insult to the victims, their loved ones, friends and the rest of us. I don’t think we as a society can give any greater insult to a human being than putting him or her down as a wild animal.

In 1985, I participated in a United Nations conference held in Milan, Italy in which one of the topics under discussion was on terrorism. The Italian government asked the UN to invite me give my speech from the podium rather than from my desk in the assembly hall as they wanted to televise it so that it could be shown that evening all over Italy. I gave the following statement at the end of my speech which applies to victims of terrorists and also of murderers. I said;

“When someone is murdered, there are three kinds of victims. First, there is the primary victim who suffers the pain of death. Then there are the secondary victims who as family members and friends, suffer from the loss of a loved one. Then there are the peripheral victims. They are those of us who are neither the primary or secondary victims. They are those of us who read and hear about the other victims for we are also victims. That is because when an innocent person dies, a little of each of us dies also.”

I think that those who stand outside death houses with placards telling us that only God punishes or that the murder should be spared, are people who have not lost a loved one to a uncaring murderer. If they really cared about human beings, their placards would be directed to the families of the victims who have come to the death house to witness the execution of the uncaring, evil person who has brought upon them such misery. Their placards should have three words on them that tell anyone reading them that they really care about the victims. The words should be, ACCEPT OUR CONDOLENCES.

I look forward to reading your thoughts on this very contentions issue in the COMMENTS section of this article in my blog.