The Scoop: An eye for an eye, a life for a life
If there was ever a crime worthy of the death penalty as punishment, it’s the murder of 35-year-old Gina Thompson, who was burned to death two weeks ago.
The crime is an absolute horror story. The victim was asleep on her sofa when three men burst into her trailer, doused her with gasoline, and then set her on fire. I’ve never had a nightmare so terrifying.
The only ounce of consolation our community can take from this tragedy is the fact law enforcement officials were quick to arrest the suspects and prosecutors are confident they have a strong case. District Attorney Dale Potter is so confident, he announced earlier this week he will seek the death penalty against the three suspects, Ruben Pimentel, Luiz De La Cruz and Luiz Gomez.
“The facts of this case require that for justice to be served, the ultimate punishment must be sought,” said Potter.
I couldn’t agree more. If ultimately found guilty, I would be in favor of dousing the three suspects with gasoline and setting them on fire. No one could argue it wouldn’t be fitting punishment.
However, obtaining a death penalty verdict is no stroll in the park. It’s an extremely difficult – and outrageously expensive – venture.
For starters, each defendant is granted two lawyers instead of one. That alone doubles the cost of a trial. And those lawyers must have certain training regarding death penalty cases.
In addition to an extra attorney, a suspect facing the death penalty is usually granted his own investigator, a crime scene reconstructionist, a mental health expert, a DNA expert (if necessary), and a mitigation expert.
“The defendants are entitled to a lot of experts who get paid expert rates,” said Potter.
The mitigation expert is the person we’ve all seen on dozens of TV shows who tries to convince the jury the suspect is a victim of society. If the suspect was ever scolded by his mother, ever teased by neighborhood kids, or ever picked on at school for wearing glasses, you can bet the mitigation expert will emphasize those incidents.
In short, anything a mitigation expert can do to earn sympathy from a jury will come out in court, however ridiculous it may sound. “When he was 5, the suspect was spanked by his father and that caused acute emotional trauma. Plus, because of lack of money, the suspect has never been able to super-size his extra value meal which has led to occasional hunger bouts.”
It’s the mitigation expert who will tell the jury how the suspect is really “a good person.” The mitigation expert will point out how the suspect loves children and puppies and is so very sorry for his crime.
The obvious question I have to ask is where was all this kindness when a woman was being burned to death?
This crime is on the same heinous level as the triple murders on Myers Lane. Potter initially sought the death penalty against Doug Myers and Johnny Lewis for those murders, but backed off because of the evidence.
“That case deserved the death penalty,” said Potter. “But we only had circumstantial evidence and we would have been unlikely to get it.”
This time prosecutors have eyewitness accounts and incriminating statements from the defendants themselves. Their case appears tight.
Like every person charged with a crime in this country, the three defendants in this case deserve the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. If they are found guilty, they should be put to death.
James Clark is editor of the Standard. He can be reached at 473-2191 or by e-mail at [email protected].