Man, those guys don't kid around down there do they Ex-cop executed for Houston woman's murder Story Highlights • Former cop Michael Griffith executed Wednesday • He is one of the few lawmen sent to death row • Griffith convicted of robbery, rape and murder of Houston flower shop worker • He asked for six long-stem red roses and pulled out a gun HUNTSVILLE, Texas (AP) -- A former sheriff's deputy was executed Wednesday for the robbery, rape and fatal stabbing of a Houston woman at her family's flower shop. Asked by the warden if he had a final statement, Michael Griffith said "No, sir." As the drugs began taking effect, Griffith said in a barely audible whisper, "Please take my spirit to the Lord." He was pronounced dead at 6:18 p.m., nine minutes after the lethal dose was administered. Griffith, 56, was the 15th condemned prisoner put to death this year in Texas, the nation's most active death penalty state. Four other inmates, including a woman, are set for lethal injection over the next three weeks. Griffith was convicted and sentenced to die for the 1994 slaying of Deborah McCormick, 44. Griffith had been a repeat customer at her flower shop. "Our family lost much more than a beautiful daughter, mother, sister and friend on October 10, 1994," said McCormick's daughter, Dawn Kirkland, who watched the execution. "We lost the glue that held our family together." He was one of the few former lawmen ever sent to death row in Texas. He rose to the rank of sergeant over his 10-year career with the Harris County Sheriff's Department but lost his job in 1993 when he was charged with assault, a violation of the department policy on domestic abuse. At his murder trial, former wives and girlfriends testified how he courted them with flowers but later abused them, including one who said he became violent with her on their wedding day. Griffith also was convicted of two violent robberies the same month as the McCormick slaying. In one, evidence showed he shot a woman in the head during the robbery of a savings and loan office. In the other, he robbed and sexually assaulted a woman at a bridal salon. Griffith was arrested after the robbery and attack at the bridal shop. Police found him with credit cards belonging to McCormick's mother that were taken in the flower shop robbery. They also found a knife and a receipt for roses he'd purchased that day from the store. A medical examiner and DNA evidence identified the knife as the murder weapon. The U.S. Supreme Court in January refused to review the case and Griffith's lawyer filed no additional appeals to try to block the execution. "The evidence against him was overwhelming," said David Cunningham, one of his trial lawyers. "When you focus on the circumstances of his arrest -- they find him with the credit cards, the knife with her DNA on it, they had him on at least two other crimes -- there really wasn't much." Scheduled to die next is Cathy Henderson, facing lethal injection June 13 for the 1994 slaying of a 3-month-old child she was baby-sitting. Henderson would be the fourth woman executed in Texas since the state resumed carrying out capital punishment in 1982 and the 12th nationally since the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976 allowed the death penalty to resume link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/06/cop.execution.ap/index.html
It would be interesting to hear what those opposed to the death penalty say about this case: basically no possible room for doubt as to guilt, executed in a humane manner, guilty of multiple henious crimes, and obviously a dangerous man to leave around. Is there any reason to doubt that his execution was just? Though I have my own misgivings on how the death penalty is applied in some cases, in this case I can't really say there is any room for disagreement here. Liberty and responsibility. He faced up to the responsibility involved in the choices he freely made.
From appearances, yes, there's no reasonable doubt that this person was guilty as charged and generally a bad man. In this particular case, executing this defendant cost less than having him imprisoned for life since he apparently didn't file any appeals. It doesn't change any of the systemic problems with the death penalty from a public-policy perspective. For every case like this where there's pretty clear-cut evidence of guilt to a moral certainty, I'd say there is at least one where there's reasonable doubt. And from my personal take as a Christian (although I realize that there's plenty of room for reasonable disagreement) executing anyone, no matter how monstrous, is a bad idea. I noted while reading this story that it's possible that this person will make his way to heaven if his last sentiment was sincere enough while numerous "good" people will be roasting for eternity.
My reasoning is thus: All cases drawing a death sentence are already meant to be beyond reasonable doubt, however in many cases those convictions have been shown to be false. By suggesting that cases like this should be treated differently you are effectively saying we should have "guilty" people and "extra double sure guilty" people. Either we treat all guilty convictions as being equal, in which case I can't support the death penalty for the chance of an innocent being killed, or you admit that some people are more obviously guilty than others, in which case you are admitting there is a chance those others are innocent.
But I admit that openly and explictely and regularly already. That's one of the big problems I have with the DP in practical terms, even though in theory I support it. Where's the problem?
"I admit that there is a chance someone is innocent, but support killing them anyway" If you think that, then this is one of those different mindset things where our views will never meet. edit: As I have said before, I have no problem with the death penalty in theory as punishment for a murderer, however in practice the theory doesn't fully work so I can't support it.
I'd take a harder look at supporting it if the systemic issues could be addressed. But most likely, even if every case were like this one, I would still oppose, simply on the basis that I don't see it as a suitable activity for the state. Even under perfect conditions today, we have no guarantee that the state won't rig the system tomorrow. The state should not be in the business of killing citizens, period.
Come on, Bailey, you can do better than that. When have you ever seen me say anything even remotely close to "I admit that there is a chance someone is innocent, but support killing them anyway"? All I have ever said is that I support the DP in theory, but have problems with it in practice because it is so rare that we can be really sure of guilt. And you twist that into "I admit that there is a chance someone is innocent, but support killing them anyway"?
Guilt and innocence have little to do with actually committing a crime, but more on the attitudes of the twelve jurors. Read up on jury nullification.
I don't think you get it. The majority of us who oppose the death penalty do it on general principle, not just because there isn't anyone evil enough or certain enough to have done it.
Some people just need killing, though. Keeping them locked up just isn't enough. They need taken out of the human equation entirely.
