Forde, found guilty, to face death hearing

The jury also convicted Forde of attempted first-degree murder in the shooting of Flores' wife, Gina Gonzalez; one count each of burglary, armed robbery and aggravated robbery; and two counts of aggravated assault.

At 10 a.m. today, prosecutors will begin telling jurors why they think the death penalty ought to be considered. They cite three factors: the financial motive behind the crime, Brisenia Flores' age and the fact there were multiple victims.

If the jury agrees, the defense will present evidence for why it believes Forde's life ought to be spared - she had a dysfunctional childhood, suffers from psychological problems and has a history of volunteering for worthy causes.

If the jury doesn't unanimously agree Forde should die, Pima County Superior Court Judge John Leonardo must sentence her to life in prison, with or without the possibility of release after 25 years.

Gonzalez testified during the first day of trial that her husband awakened her to say the police were at the door. The woman at the door identified herself and the man with her as law enforcement officers looking for fugitives, Gonzalez said.

Click to expand...

What a ****ing crock a ****! When you murder someone, the death penalty should be the only ****ing answer!

Forde, found guilty, to face death hearing

chevydriver1123 said:

What a ****ing crock a ****! When you murder someone, the death penalty should be the only ****ing answer!

Click to expand...

It's not an answer at all, it's just a reaction. Justice has to be more than that. It has to be about salvaging something out of tragedy. I think everyone understands on some level that it is wrong to kill someone for any reason other than self-defense - which certainly doesn't apply to strapping a prisoner down and taking their life - but that can become obscured when people are enraged or feel such pain they are driven to hate. I have nothing but the utmost sympathy for families of murder victims, and acknowledge that I might not be as strong as my convictions if I were ever forced to deal with their pain, but either way that wouldn't change the truth of what I'm saying. There are more than the victim's families involved - there is also the perpetrator's family, who probably did no more to deserve the pain of losing a loved one than the victims. There is also the possibility, however remote in some cases (it's never exactly zero), that they are not guilty, and respect for that small possibility - acknowledgment that judges and juries are fallible - means you do not have the luxury of taking someone's life.

But even if it were possible to be certain down to a mathematical absolute that a person is guilty, what purpose does it serve to kill them? If a person's life can legitimately be taken as a deterrent to others - if a human being's value can be objectified as a tool to terrorize other people into obeying the law - then there is no moral barrier to killing people for any other offense, no matter how small, because you have made human life a tool of control rather than an inherently-valued thing. The reasons for opposing capital punishment are endless and beyond refutation, while those in favor boil down to "I feel like it, and what is the life of a killer compared to my desire?" Well, someone who would pull the switch on a killer knows exactly what a killer is - they should pull the switch on themselves immediately after, if they have the courage of their convictions. Or we can agree that a human life carries inherent value and the state does not have a right to take it except in defense. However dark, ugly, and worthless a human life is at any given point, you do not know what it will be in the future. That is the hope of the world. The only hope.

Troubadour said:

Justice has to be more than that. It has to be about salvaging something out of tragedy.

Click to expand...

Sometimes, there is nothing left to salvage. What value does Ms. Forde's life have now? And what do you suppose could be salvaged from it after 25 years in prison?

Troubadour said:

I think everyone understands on some level that it is wrong to kill someone for any reason other than self-defense

Click to expand...

If that were true, everyone would agree with you. Since they do not, this statement is obviously false. It is wrong to kill without just cause, but the concept of just cause encompasses far more than mere self defense. Most people would argue that invading the home of a law abiding citizen and killing them and their family in cold blood is just cause to kill them in return; they are a danger to others and to the very moral fabric of society itself. They have violated the social contract in the worst possible way and their lives are thus forfeit as a result.

Troubadour said:

But even if it were possible to be certain down to a mathematical absolute that a person is guilty, what purpose does it serve to kill them? If a person's life can legitimately be taken as a deterrent to others - if a human being's value can be objectified as a tool to terrorize other people into obeying the law - then there is no moral barrier to killing people for any other offense, no matter how small, because you have made human life a tool of control rather than an inherently-valued thing.

Click to expand...

The concept of inherent value is a logical fallacy. Nothing has inherent value; nothing has value beyond what we are willing to sacrifice to achieve it or protect it. We are each free to decide for ourselves what is the value of the life of a murderer and a thief. In my case, that value is not much. We will see what the judge and jury have to say about it.

Troubadour said:

Well, someone who would pull the switch on a killer knows exactly what a killer is - they should pull the switch on themselves immediately after, if they have the courage of their convictions.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between a killer and a murderer. Else everyone who kills in self-defense would also have to kill themselves immediately after.