« Local DA in Georgia makes pitch against sentencing guidelines and for more judicial discretion | Main | Feds prosecuting active NY advocate of jury nullification »

February 24, 2011

Prisoner serving life who murdered guard in Washington saying he should get death penalty

This local story out of Washington, which is headlined "Documents: Inmate wants death for killing correctional officer," provides an interesting bit of extra information about a high-profile murder case. Here are the details:

Byron Scherf, the inmate who has confessed to strangling Monroe correctional officer Jayme Biendl to death, wants the death penalty, according to court documents obtained by KOMO News.  "I took her life and I think I should forfeit mine," Scherf told authorities, according to the court documents.

He also said he believes prosecutors should try him for aggravated first-degree murder in Biendl's death and seek the death penalty.  "If I get a life sentence and she's dead, then there's no punishment attached to it because I already have a life sentence," Scherf told detectives on Feb. 9, according to the documents.

According to court records released earlier, Scherf admitted killing Biendl Jan. 29 at the prison chapel of the Monroe Correctional Complex in an interview with Monroe police detectives. Scherf told detectives that Biendl said something that made him angry as they were talking in the prison chapel.  "I got to the point where I knew I was going to kill her," he told detectives, according to a transcript of the interview.

Recent related post:

February 24, 2011 at 03:42 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2014e5f711ae7970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Prisoner serving life who murdered guard in Washington saying he should get death penalty:

Comments

He was given a license to kill and used it. Shall we give him another?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 24, 2011 4:43:45 PM

Betcha can't stop at just one.

Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Feb 24, 2011 8:37:40 PM

This simple and humble prisoner understands. The Ivy educated lawyer dumbasses that have totally infiltrated our government do not.

We need total purges of these internal traitors, and an Amendment excluding the lawyer from all benches, all legislative seats, and all responsible policy positions in the Executive.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Feb 25, 2011 12:07:40 AM

lol i figure if they can show it's a willing confession and decision...give the man a poison pill and 5 mins of quiet time and we can then move on and save one hell of a lot of money.

Posted by: rodsmith | Feb 25, 2011 1:02:34 AM

Hello Guys, I am blog lover. As much as I have concerned most of the states in America, capital punishment has been take off. But it is quite surprising why Byron Scherf behaved like that.

Posted by: Barbara Williams | Feb 25, 2011 7:22:55 AM

Seems pretty generous to just give him what he wants. If he wants to die so badly, he can always commit suicide. Not saying the state should help him here, but if he can kill a guard, clearly they don't have the ability to stop him forever if he wants to try.

Posted by: Joe | Feb 25, 2011 11:12:45 AM

Joe --

"Seems pretty generous to just give him what he wants."

I'm sure we're all for generosity.

On a more serious note, if what he wants corresponds to what he deserves, then there's nothing wrong, and lots right, about giving it to him.

In addition, as he points out, if there is only LWOP, he can kill as many as he feels like. There will be no additional sentence no matter how numerous his future victims. Is he wrong about that?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Feb 25, 2011 3:36:06 PM

I think the past thread on this case discussed the proper sentence in this case. The basic idea is that imperfect systems will always have some troubling cases. The death penalty will not only be applied in cases of this sort. As to what to do with him, the previous thread noted that he was not in maximum security. There is a worse punishment and that provides a deterrent function. The narrow possibility that he will have a chance to kill there [his chance in this case was at a chapel in a position that would not similarly arise] goes back to the first point. Should we force child victims to be cross examined by their rapists? Other extreme cases come to mind. The protection isn't erased simply because of the extreme instances.

But, this is an extreme case. And, yes, seriously, if he "deserves" it, that should be the test. My immediate thought in these cases however is the irony in giving murderers what they want. This is less troubling than the "I can't take prison" "volunteer" group.

Posted by: Joe | Feb 25, 2011 6:34:06 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB