Death Row Inmate Michael Worthington Executed For Raping, Killing College Student

[Garthem]

Source: HuffPo



BONNE TERRE, Mo. (AP) — A Missouri inmate was put to death Wednesday for raping and killing a college student in 1995, making him the first U.S. prisoner put to death since an Arizona lethal injection went awry last month.

The Missouri Department of Corrections said Michael Worthington was executed by lethal injection at the state prison and was pronounced dead at 12:11 a.m. He is the seventh Missouri inmate executed this year.

Worthington had been sentenced to death for the attack on 24-year-old Melinda "Mindy" Griffin during a burglary of her Lake St. Louis condominium.

The U.S. Supreme Court and Missouri's governor had declined on Tuesday to block the execution.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/05/michael-worthing-execution_n_5652999.html

[stone space]

1. The Death Penalty needs to be abolished. It's nothing but legalized murder. (nt)

[leftyohiolib]

6. " It's nothing but legalized murder." im fine with that for those who do stuff like this

[stone space]

9. I'm not, but it seems that you have some company here. (nt)

[leftyohiolib]

10. agree we dont all see things the same way nt

[tenderfoot]

68. You are hilarious. Anti-choice. Pro-death penalty.

How conservative of you.

[leftyohiolib]

79. i am anti-abortion when it comes to my children what you do with yours is your business

am I allowed to have an opinion that differs from yours?

as for How conservative of you. my voting record would say otherwise

[markpkessinger]

77. Then I gather you are also fine with the occasional execution of innocent persons also . . .

. . . because under our system, there is absolutely no way to have one without the other.

[leftyohiolib]

78. nope executing innocent people is bad

[markpkessinger]

80. Right . . .

. . . but given that our justice system sometimes wrongly convicts people, and that there is no way under our justice system to ensure that the death penalty is only used for "people we absolutely know are guilty," (because there is no such thing as varying degrees of certainty of guilt before the law), then no matter what you want to tell yourself, if you support the use of the death penalty in any instance, you lend de facto support to the execution of innocents. There is simply no getting around that uncomfortable reality.

[leftyohiolib]

81. there are people who are guilty beyond doubt

[markpkessinger]

84. Sure there are . . .

. . . But under our legal system, there is ONE standard for evidence of guilt (i.e., "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a criminal trial, a person is either found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or he/she is not. There are no degrees of certainty (nor could there be, because it would throw the entire justice system into chaos). And, uncomfortable though it certainly is, under that single standard of evidence for guilt, people are sometimes wrongly convicted. Here's the problem:

Let's suppose we have two defendants, each convicted of the same heinous crime. The case against Defendant A was rock solid: there was clear, unequivocal evidence presented, including solid DNA evidence, that links Defendant A to the crime of which he was convicted. The case against Defendant B, however, doesn't have a lot of direct physical evidence, but the conviction was obtained on very strong circumstantial evidence and possibly an eyewitness identification (we know eyewitness identifications are extremely unreliable, but they also happen to be extremely effective with most juries.) Since the standard for finding either defendant guilty was evidence that demonstrated each one's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," and both met that same standard, equity and fairness demand that each defendant be subject to the the same range of punishments prescribed for the particular crime they committed. And IF you are going to say that Defendant A's guilt under the law is certain enough, relative to the certainty of Defendant B's guilt, to merit the possibility of the death penalty, then, by extension, you are suggesting that perhaps there was "reasonable doubt" as to Defendant B's guilt in the first place (when in reality, Defendant B might be totally guilty). This is why any suggestion that criminal sentences can or should be imposed based on degree of certainty of guilt is utterly unworkable, and is a complete and utter legal fiction.

[SacoMaine61]

12. +1

I agree. I think it falls under cruel and unusual punishment.

[samsingh]

29. it is not legalized murder - it's respect and dignity to the memory of victims

I have no sympathy for murderers (but I can't tolerate innocent people being called guilty).

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. Pft. It's Old Testament barbarism.

Eye for an eye 'justice'.

Killing one person does nothing to bring back the prior person. All it does is let the victim's mourners marinate in hatred and revenge.

There's no dignity in seeing people gloat over their revenge.

[7962]

55. Putting them in prison doesnt bring back the victim either. nt

[samsingh]

72. no one's gloating over revenge. But there should be justice for the victim.

[surrealAmerican]

65. I can't agree with you there.

Somehow I think killing in their names is not showing respect for the victims. It cheapens their memory and their dignity. It's revenge: nothing more, and nothing less.

[samsingh]

73. it does not cheapen their memory - coddling a serial killer

and giving them a great life and a platform to talk about how they wronged in the past but want to change for the future is a disgusting slap in the face for the butchered victims.

[tenderfoot]

69. Saudi Arabia totally agrees!

I wish we were more like them!

[samsingh]

74. no i think that's a different issue

I don't believe in chopping off hands if someone steals a loaf of bread.

by your logic Saudi Arabia also agrees with you - you can stone someone to death and be hailed a hero.

[FarPoint]

2. I'm okay with that...

[bigwillq]

4. Me too

Good riddance.

[840high]

52. Me three

[CreekDog]

85. the only place where innocents don't get the death penalty

is where the death penalty doesn't exist.

[7962]

3. Shouldn't have taken 19 years to be rid of this guy.

[Ed Suspicious]

5. We need to expedite this shit! Found guilty, electric chair at the back of the court-room.

People who want death are sick. This guy is sick . . . death penalty advocates are even sicker. They feel justified in their cold, calculated, clean-handed murders.

[leftyohiolib]

8. They feel justified in their cold, calculated, clean-handed murders. - sticks and stone , sticks and

stones-

[7962]

11. Hey, you're funny! I have no problem with appeals. They just shouldnt take 19 yrs.

Its easy to "fix' the death penalty. Remove the "reasonable doubt" from jury decisions. To get a capital sentence, there should be NO doubt as to their guilt. There are PLENTY of those cases. Ted Bundy? There was NO doubt. Just as with this guy. Tim McVeigh only took a few yrs to get rid of.
But leave 'em in for life and just watch as these killers get older; then we'll be hearing that its "inhumane" to leave old men in jail and they're no longer a threat, etc, so let them out.

[candelista]

16. "No" doubt would permit insane doubt as a reason for acquittal.

E.g., if a juror believed the accused was demonically possessed, that would be a reason for acquittal, since there would be SOME doubt.

[7962]

54. Not sure I've ever seen that as a reason by a jury yet. Thats kinda reaching.

[heaven05]

13. ?????

what about the person he raped and killed. What about the family of this victim, the friends, what about the terror of the crime?????????? Always worried about the perp. That's sick. Yeah, yeah I know the story. Innocent people get executed also, especially because of the racist, sick society we live in.....but what, I ask again, about justice for the victim?

[stone space]

14. I don't think that was legal.

what about the person he raped and killed.

This one was.

[heaven05]

15. answer the question

what about justice for the victim? Simple question, complicate it.

[stone space]

20. What about it?

what about justice for the victim?

The victim is not likely to "get justice".

[heaven05]

22. right

[stone space]

24. This execution does nothing at all to change that prospect, either. (nt)

[heaven05]

26. awwww

poor little murderer. just in case.

[stone space]

27. What about justice for the victim?

You still haven't answered. Your sarcasm is just a deflection from the question at hand.

When and how will the victim ever get justice?

[heaven05]

31. never

if left up to you. Yeah the victim is dead. Nothing can change that. The murderer deserves to get what he gave. Period.

[stone space]

34. What does this have to do with me?

never if left up to you.

I'm not even involved.

You seem to be attacking me in order to avoid answering the question.

Again, I ask you: What about the victim? When and how will the victim get justice?

Either you have an answer or you don't.

It's OK if you don't have an answer to the question. But simply attacking the person who asks you the question does not constitute an answer.

[heaven05]

38. I am not attacking you, personally

just don't agree with your stand on capital punishment and never will. The victim never will see the justice, but maybe, just maybe capital punishment will make someone work through a problem instead of ridding themselves, through unnecessary violence, of a problem. Just maybe. That's only one solution to an age old problem of human existence. Now I will agree that not all violence is perpetrated because of the same motivation(s). Murder is complicated. Yet an individual such as this OP is describing is not a person who should be allowed to breath longer than necessary. I believe.

[candelista]

21. What do you mean "what about" it?

Specifically, what are you asking? Or is it a rhetorical question? If so, what does it mean?

[heaven05]

23. justice

is a balancing of the scales. He did this crime, he deserves to get what he gave. That's "what about it".

[candelista]

33. So what should happen to drunk drivers?

Should they be put on the highway where a bunch of drunk drivers are driving?

[heaven05]

36. false equivalence

the refuge of the unsure. And to answer your question. Maybe if a drunk driver was executed for killing a bunch of children in a van or while walking, maybe, just maybe some would think twice about putting themselves and others at risk because of their 'sickness' and disregard for human life.

[7962]

56. Damn good point.

[LanternWaste]

44. An eye for an eye is unenlightened and without merit.

An 'eye for an eye' is unenlightened and without objective merit. Vendetta law has been found to be outdated by the concensus of civilization.

But I imagine it makes people feel good...

[uppityperson]

95. true "justice" would be him working toward prevention of crimes like this by others. Righting the

wrong in a way that would make a difference, not simply bowing out of the picture.

[Carolina]

70. Exactly

All this concern for the perp!

They say give these guys life in prison but nurse killer Speck thrived in prison, one of Sharon Tate's murderers married and had a baby, Ted Bundy escaped and went on to kill in Florida...

Some deserve the death penalty, especially someone like this who broke into a woman's home, raped her and strangled her. He is any woman's worst nightmare, there is no doubt of his guilt or a false confession because of DNA and he got what he deserved.

[candelista]

19. That's like it works in China.

They arrest you on Monday, try you on Tuesday and execute you on Wednesday. They sometimes used to do the execution in a train station. How would you like them apples?

[leftyohiolib]

7. the 19 years is cruel to the convict

[christx30]

18. Depending on the killer,

I'm ok with that sometimes. Nidal Hassan is paralyzed from the waist down. And he's relatively young. Under the best circumstances, he would have a hard life. In prison, I think his life is going to be downright terrible. Plus, he wants to die. Keep him healthy and let him know every day he'll be there for 30 years. He can't escape, not even in death. He'll be in that room for a long time.

[samsingh]

30. i agree

[CreekDog]

86. should be easier to execute?

hmmm. well that will send a lot more innocents to their death.

worth it?

[candelista]

17. Maybe we should bring back crucifixion as a method of punishment.

That might satisfy the blood lust of some of the posters in this thread. Right?

[heaven05]

28. no, but the guillotine would

a firing squad would. Why this concern for the criminal? All this it makes us as bad as the criminal is BS. I'm glad the murderer of my sister is dead. Period. If that makes me a baaaaadddd person, so be it. If he hadn't committed suicide, I would have liked to have been in the room when the 'chair' was turned on.

[candelista]

35. Nothing is going to change your mind about this. It's personal.

OK. I won't argue with you. But your reaction, by its personal nature, is not a reliable basis for deciding what is just or unjust.

[heaven05]

37. just or unjust

yep, we, to use an overused adage, agree to disagree.

[7962]

57. Thats the usual response; bring in something absurd.

[FiveGoodMen]

58. Nothing absurd about it

If you're going to approve cruelty at all, then it's reasonable to ask where the lines are.

[delta17]

60. Life in prison could be considered cruel.

So could solitary confinement. I don't really care about this guy's quality of life. He made a horrible decision, he can live with the consequences.

[FiveGoodMen]

61. Some people surely do deserve whatever they get

But WE deserve better than to create a barbaric society just so that we can stick it to the bad ones.

Yes, life in prison would be awful. If we can protect ourselves without that, we should.

[delta17]

64. I'm iffy on the DP.

The kicker to me is that this was a rape and murder. This wasn't over drug debt or territory, this was abject cruelty. I don't see this guy as ever being trustworthy.

I think once someone is convicted of a crime like this, we have a duty to keep them away from society. I don't think they should be tortured or suffer a cruel death, but other than that, I believe society's needs come before theirs.

[heaven05]

25. all this weeping

for the poor little murderer. I just don't get it.

[samsingh]

32. neither do i

they should try to think of the horror the poor innocent girl felt when this monster brutally took her like, future children and dream away.

[LanternWaste]

46. Does compassion for the one deny compassion for the other?

"they should try to think of the horror the poor innocent girl felt..."

Does compassion for the one deny compassion for the other? If not, why presume what others may or may not think about the victim?

[samsingh]

48. i actually believe it does. If someone cares for the victim

they should want justice against the criminal.

[LanternWaste]

45. Compassion for the least among us is an indicator of a people's character and integrity.

"I just don't get it..."

Compassion for the least among us (of which, an inmate is by its very definition) is an indicator of a culture's humaneness and integrity, regardless of the lack of empathy within the individual (whether murderer, or simply one who cheers dearth...).

Thou I can certainly understand why many may be confused and 'not get it...'

[7962]

59. Which is why we try to kill them painlessly. Otherwise, we could burn them alive or stab them.

[Trillo]

39. Why can't our laws result in executions of some banksters?

Or cops who kill innocents? Or for torturers?

There are at least two levels of justice in the U.S. Some are above being held responsible for their actions, while others are held responsible and cheered as they die.

[Garthem]

47. Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Fei

I could get behind that!

[delta17]

66. Because rapists and murderers are far worse than bankers.

I'm not sure where you were going with that one.

[Trillo]

87. Deaths occurred from the foreclosure crisis.

http://www.wellsbankstersfargo.com/?p=120
"Wells Fargo Apparently Responsible for Another Death By Foreclosure"

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=30070
"3 March 2009 – The global financial crisis sweeping through Wall Street and the European banking sector will touch the lives of the world’s most vulnerable, pushing millions into deeper poverty and leading to the deaths of thousands of children, according to a new United Nations study."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025255298
"$250 Billion Lawsuit against Big Banks"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/business/economy/17regulation.html?_r=0
EPA set value of life at $9.1 million.

[petronius]

40. I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, and it has nothing

to do with the convict or the victim. Even setting aside the possibility of error, that fact that we opt to kill a human for vengeance is a stain on our society...

[Ed Suspicious]

42. +1

[samsingh]

49. it is not a stain on society. it is justice. Are you against defending ourselves against foreign

invaders? they are humans too.

[tabasco]

53. That doesn't make any sense.

Last edited Wed Aug 6, 2014, 06:27 PM - Edit history (1)

You know there are countries without the death penalty that would readily defend themselves against a foreign invasion.

They choose not to give their governments the power to kill as a criminal penalty.

Do you believe our government and our justice system are infallible? LOL.

[samsingh]

75. well i don't LOL in this matter as i take it very seriously

I don't think the system is infallible.

in this case there is no doubt about the killer's guilt.

[petronius]

63. I support a right to self-defense at both the national and personal level

when necessary. But that's a false equivalency when it comes the DP, which is a deliberate choice to kill unnecessarily.

The DP is 'justice' only in the shallow sense of 'vengeance.' A civilized society should have the ability to move beyond that thinking; when it does not, it's a stain.

Claims that people are sobbing for the criminal or forgetting the victim are nonsensical - the DP is about a choice we make, as a society, and objecting to it is entirely about our morality and behavior...

[BuddhaGirl]

67. It IS a stain on our society

The US is in good company with the likes of Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan etc.

Ugh.

No DP in Canada, Central, or South America.

It is a stain on our society.

[samsingh]

76. i think people in those other countries are put to death for being gay, talking against the

government, having a different religion than the majority, sleeping out of wedlock.

I think executing a serial or brutal murderer is very different.

I hope you see the difference between murdering someone and saying you don't agree with the government.

[BuddhaGirl]

82. there is no crime egregious enough

to warrant the death penalty.

Period.

[7962]

89. Your opinion, fine. My family is worth it. Actually, theres plenty egregious enough

raping and murdering children. Killing the President. Holding someone as a sex slave before killing them. Do you read the news at all? DO you see just what people actually DO to other people?
But you think they deserve to be fed and housed for decades. Many of them arent fazed at all by the thought of prison.

[BuddhaGirl]

90. Oh yes, I'm well aware of what people do to other people

and the death penalty is not a deterrent.

Yes, it's my opinion, and you have your opinion. I don't believe in state-sponsored murder and the death penalty is not "justice."

Also, see post #67

[samsingh]

93. the death penalty is a deterrent

what to test it.

murders committed on even days get the death penalty
murders committed on odd days get life in prison

lets see what happens.

[7962]

91. IMO, because of the freedoms we are allowed, excessive punishment is warranted for these types

they dont deserve to be fed and housed for 50 yrs

[BuddhaGirl]

92. IMO,

the death penalty has no place in a civilized society.

An eye for an eye - ugh.

[7962]

94. Well, if it were really eye for an eye, we'd kill em in the way they murdered.

A lot of folks would like that. For me, its enough to be rid of them. Otherwise, soon we will see people pushing for the release of these 'old harmless' inmates who are no longer a threat to society once they get in their 60s or 70s. Just wait and see.

[Rhinodawg]

41. This guy was some sob.

[LibGranny]

43. The criminal always has time on his side in these cases - the victims are forgotten! I'm all for th

death penalty but I'd like to see it expedited sooner after the verdict - not more than 5 years for appeals!

[samsingh]

50. exactly - i hate that so much - that victims are forgotten.

even when they are remembered, it's like 'oh yeah, poor victim' , and then all the energy is spent in defense of the violent criminal.

Murderers, when their is no doubt to their guilt, should be executed after due process.

[jaded_old_cynic]

62. I simply do not understand the rationale of the pro death penalty people.

The usual justification for giving the state the ability to kill people is “Justice” for the victim and the victim’s families.

As others here have said, the families are never going to get actual justice. Unless you want to call vengeance justice. The pain of their loss is never going to be healed.

IMHO all that the death penalty does is create more victims. I’m not talking about the accused, I am speaking of the family of the accused.

Almost everyone has someone in their lives who love and care about them. No matter how reprehensible that particular person or their behavior may be. All of us are aware of how difficult it is to have a family member die, no matter the reason. So what we need to ask ourselves is “Do we really want to cause pain for the families of the accused, who had nothing to do with the crime/crimes that were committed just to satisfy an overdeveloped sense of vengeance?”

To me, the only thing the death penalty accomplishes is to spread the pain around, rather than minimize it as much as is humanly possible.

Sure, lock them up, throw away the key, but let us try to evolve past visceral primitive emotions instead of creating more sorrow.

Just a thought.

[christx30]

71. In some cases, I'm ok with the DP

and in favor of life in prison. For a vicious killer like this one, I'm ok with him dying. Prison is a very dangerous place and a guy like this has proven himself to be a threat to other people. This guy will never hurt anyone ever again. He won't be able to escape. He won't shiv some guy in the shower. He won't charm some judge into getting out of prison to kill again. It's not about revenge. It's about protecting human lives from this person.

[jaded_old_cynic]

83. It still makes no sense to me.

People in prison hurt each other all the time and not every one of the perpetrators are convicted killers. Violence occurs within institutional walls on a daily basis. None of that is going to stop unless we decide to execute all criminals.

As for escape, when was the last time you heard about a successful escape from a maximum security prison? It doesn't happen quite as often as you may think. So what you're basically saying is that we should kill the prisoner on the remote chance that he may escape? The statistics say that prison escapes have been steadily falling with the advent of new technologies.

And to your third point about "Charming a Judge" I'm a paralegal by profession, and there aren't any judges I know of that would be "charmed" by a convicted killer. A judge's responsibility is to follow the law. If the prosecutors don't perform their job legally, or leave loopholes you can drive a truck through, it's the fault of the system, not the perpetrator.

I notice you never addressed my question about the prisoner's families and the pain and anguish they must be feeling, to not only have to live with the fact that their loved one committed a heinous act, but they will lose their life because of it.

I just don't believe that the state is thinking clearly when it sends the message that killing is wrong, by killing people.

[mackerel]

88. 19 years later he's euthanized for a crime he freely admits.