« Defense team for Jodi Arias makes notable attack of Arizona jury's death elegibility finding | Main | SCOTUS grants cert on challenging child porn restitution issues that have deeply split lower courts »

June 26, 2013

"Texas carries out 500th execution with Kimberly McCarthy"

The title of this post is the headline of this new AP article, which gets started this way:

Texas marked a solemn moment in criminal justice Wednesday evening, executing its 500th inmate since it resumed carrying out capital punishment in 1982.  Kimberly McCarthy, who was put to death for the murder of her 71-year-old neighbor, was also the first woman executed in the U.S. in nearly three years.

McCarthy, 52, was executed for the 1997 robbery, beating and fatal stabbing of retired college psychology professor Dorothy Booth.  Booth had agreed to give McCarthy a cup of sugar before she was attacked with a butcher knife and candelabra at her home in Lancaster, about 15 miles south of Dallas.  Authorities say McCarthy cut off Booth's finger to remove her wedding ring.  It was among three slayings linked to McCarthy, a former nursing home therapist who became addicted to crack cocaine.

She was pronounced dead at 6:37 p.m. CDT, 20 minutes after Texas prison officials began administering a single lethal dose of pentobarbital.

Texas has carried out nearly 40 percent of the more than 1,300 executions in the U.S. since the Supreme Court allowed capital punishment to resume in 1976. The state's standing stems from its size as the nation's second-most populous state as well as its tradition of tough justice for killers.

June 26, 2013 at 10:01 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2019103de46dc970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Texas carries out 500th execution with Kimberly McCarthy":

Comments

And this from the "pro life" state.

Posted by: observer | Jun 27, 2013 8:54:46 AM

"pro life" for innocent babies,
"pro death" for convicted murderers

You prefer the opposite, perhaps?

Posted by: Adamakis | Jun 27, 2013 11:21:33 AM

Adamakis, a fetus is not a "baby." The rules of the Taliban do not control this country.

Posted by: observer | Jun 27, 2013 11:42:59 AM

There is a great debate over how properly to defend "life," including when "life begins" and if the death penalty in certain cases is appropriate to defend life. So, some brief shot at "pro-life states" really gets us nowhere.

Posted by: Joe | Jun 27, 2013 12:01:09 PM

@observer-You need to read a science textbook.

Fetuses have their own unique DNA (the building block of "life"). Everything after conception is just another step of human development. "Birth=life" is an unscientific construction made by people with an agenda...

It is funny how liberals deny science.

Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Jun 27, 2013 12:51:01 PM

From a scientific source, The Stages of HUMAN Development:

http://faculty.washington.edu/wtalbott/phil102/tr11-27.htm

Note that number one is "conception."

It is a human. You can argue when the human is worthy of protection, but you cannot argue scientifically that it is not a "human."

Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Jun 27, 2013 12:55:23 PM

TarIsQtr1

Your sperm is alive and has unique DNA. How many millions of babies to you murder when you masturbate? P.S. I'm not a liberal, but given the Taliban types , I'm thinking of becoming one.

Posted by: observer | Jun 27, 2013 1:11:56 PM

TarisQtr1 writes "Fetuses have their own unique DNA (the building block of "life"). Everything after conception is just another step of human development. "Birth=life" is an unscientific construction made by people with an agenda..."

I think observer has the better argument: sperm also "have their own unique DNA" and sperm are "alive" by any definition of life. The only mistake observer makes is this: when you masturbate, you murder billions of living organisms, not mere millions.

Posted by: scientist | Jun 27, 2013 1:16:25 PM

Uh, is sperm considered a part of "HUMAN development?"

You both need to figure out how an argument is structured. Mine has two premises, both backed up by science.

Premise A: SCIENTIFICALLY, from even the zygote stage there is unique DNA separate from the parents.

Premise B: SCIENTIFICALLY, conception is the first stage of "HUMAN development."

Conclusion: A zygote is a HUMAN, separate from its parents.

The sperm example does not fit because it does not meet Premise B just as an African Violet does not.

Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Jun 27, 2013 1:27:25 PM

TarlsQtr1, sperm is a living organism absolutely essential to human development. To destroy sperm is to destroy the essential first step towards a human being. Your sophistry cannot save you from the charge of murdering living organisms. We a jury of 12 women find you guilty, and we pronounce the following sentence: Bailiff, wack his pee-pee.

Posted by: scientist | Jun 27, 2013 1:53:19 PM

TarisQtr1, you assert that a zygote is "human." That is more an ethical and religious view than a scientific one. As Wikipedia accurately summarizes:

"From a biological standpoint, human development is a continuum, starting with the germ cells (ovum and spermatozoon), through fertilization, prenatal development, birth, and growth to adulthood. The germinal stage, refers to ovum (egg) prior to fertilization, through the development of the early embryo, up until the time of implantation.[1] During this stage, the fertilization creates a single-celled zygote, which is defined as an embryo because it contains a full complement of genetic material. Prior to implantation, the embryo remains in a protein shell, the zona pellucida, and undergoes a series of cell divisions. A week after fertilization the embryo still has not grown in size, but hatches from its protein shell and adheres to the lining of the mother's uterus."

Are you saying that at this state the zygote is human?


Posted by: biologist | Jun 27, 2013 2:11:06 PM

scientist stated-"TarlsQtr1, sperm is a living organism absolutely essential to human development."

Yes, but irrelevant.

You stated: "To destroy sperm is to destroy the essential first step towards a human being."

Walking in on your teenage son in coitus with his girlfriend is stopping an essential first step too. So? Sex, along with a woman creating an egg and a man creating sperm are ALL "essential first steps" towards a human being but none of these things ARE human beings.

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT begins at conception. This is pure, unadulterated science. It is not "fetal" development. It is not zygote development. It is HUMAN DEVELOPMENT.

You stated: "Your sophistry cannot save you from the charge of murdering living organisms."

There is no moral issue, in most cases, with killing (the use of the word murder is inappropriate) "living organisms." We do it to eat everyday. That sperm is a "living organism" does not make it a "human being." Only when it joins with an egg. No "sophistry" at all, just science.

Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Jun 27, 2013 2:18:52 PM

Texas needs 1000 executions a year to get rid of the violent criminals. I would like a separate death quota for the lawyer hierarchy, of another 100 lawyers, judges, and legislators executed a year. To deter.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jun 27, 2013 2:28:58 PM

"Biologist" stated: "TarisQtr1, you assert that a zygote is "human." That is more an ethical and religious view than a scientific one."

Bollocks.

You stated: "As Wikipedia accurately summarizes:..."

LOL Wikipedia? You do realize that I do not let my freshman college students use Wikipedia, right? You do realize that I did not let my former junior high students do it either, correct?

I previously provided information from the University of Washington. Here is some from Princeton:

"Human development is the process of growing to maturity."

So, what EXACTLY is growing to "maturity?" A cow? A bird? Will it become a MATURE clump of cells? No, it becomes a "mature" human being in contrast with an "immature" human being (zygote).

"In biological terms, this entails growth from a one-celled zygote to an adult human being. Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm cell, and the female gamete, the egg, fuse to produce a zygote." http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Human_development_(biology).html

Deny science....


Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Jun 27, 2013 3:18:01 PM

TarlsQtr, you write "You do realize that I do not let my freshman college students use Wikipedia, right? " Maybe you should; they might learn more. What exactly in the quoted paragraph is not correct?

You quote your source as follows: "Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm cell, and the female gamete, the egg, fuse to produce a zygote." there is nothing here that contradicts what I wrote--. What is missing, however, is the statement that development could not begin at all without the living organism called the sperm (and egg), the essential precursors to "development." To destroy the sperm is to prevent development from ever beginning. So why is that destruction more acceptable than stopping development after it has begun?

Posted by: observer | Jun 27, 2013 3:43:23 PM

Observer stated: "Maybe you should [use Wikipedia]; they might learn more."

Uh, you DO realize that Wikipedia is accepted virtually NOWHERE (from grade school through graduate school) as an academic source, correct?

You stated: "What exactly in the quoted paragraph is not correct?"

Right here: "human development is a continuum, starting with the germ cells (ovum and spermatozoon)"

There is no "human" developing. Ovum and spermatozoon are "developing." And, YES, I know that no human will develop with out them. That does not make them "human."

You stated: "What is missing, however, is the statement that development could not begin at all without the living organism called the sperm (and egg), the essential precursors to "development.""

Irrelevant. Steel is necessary for a car but steel is NOT a car. You used the right word, "precursors." They are precursors to human beings but are not human beings.

You stated: "To destroy the sperm is to prevent development from ever beginning. So why is that destruction more acceptable than stopping development after it has begun?"

Already answered multiple times. It is not a human until the two meet. It THEN leaves the status of "precursor" and begins HUMAN development.

Science. You should try it...

Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Jun 27, 2013 4:13:18 PM

TarIsQtr1

Kudos: all learning but the "science so-called" of Haeckel and Sanger supports the unique personhood of the unborn.

Even the increasingly degraded medical and psychiatric professions (see transgenderism as healthy but toddler tantrums as
a "dysregulation [mental] disorder" &c.) probably at least accept key aspects of the merriam-webster/medline definition of "fetus", i.e. "a developing human .. an unborn".

Hippocrates c.430 BC surely knew this without modern equipment, and all from molecular genetics to prenatal ultrasound
agrees and elaborates.

You and I prosper by science, we need "merely" to insist on the logical implications of its facts such as the -> separate status
of the unborn from her mother, the -> obvious violence to baby and mom done by terminating the child in utero, the
-> biological reality of gender, and like others. Right?

Posted by: Adamakis | Jun 27, 2013 4:19:34 PM

Adamakis,

Thanks!

One of the great problems of modern liberalism's appeal to "science" is that they do not appeal to it at all. It is an act. Their religion (liberalism) ALWAYS trumps science even as they accuse us of being religious zealots. I wish my fellow Christians had as much faith in Christ as people like observer do in liberalism.

Science compliments my faith, they throw it overboard at its first inconvenience.

Posted by: TarlsQtr1 | Jun 27, 2013 5:08:27 PM

Tarls/Adamakis--why bother engaging? If these nitwits think that those who think that killing the unborn is wrong are Taliban, there's really no point in discussing. They're simply idiotic low-information Obama voters. As for the silliness about "pro-life," once again, if these clowns cannot see the difference between guilty murderers and innocent unborn, what's the point.

Posted by: federalist | Jun 27, 2013 9:53:23 PM

Imagine if CA and FL carried out HALF of what TX does...then we would have progress in reducing detah rows and their costs. Justice is often delayed but not denied in Texas. Congratulations. Lets hope all 50 states adopt a DP statutue. If we had a real DOJ they would link funding to require every state to have a DP statutue else no funding. That would be the best way to ensure equal protection. Life or DP for 1st degree murderers.

Posted by: DeanO | Jun 28, 2013 11:10:50 AM

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