Originally Posted by ponderingturtle
I had to research this topic for an historical novel I was writing and much of it was quite new to me. The key book on Amazon (I've only read extracts} is this one:
The Executioner's Journal: Meister Frantz Schmidt of the Imperial City of Nuremberg (Studies in Early Modern German History) Diary – 30 Jun. 2016
And of course, there is also modern hangman Pierrepoint, which I have never read.
Looking at Montgomery purely objectively from a cold legal POV, the issue of her capability and mental illness, should have been brought up at the trial, that is the correct time. Also, since a very large percentage of society's worst criminals have had appalling childhoods (for example, the Bulgar killers, one of whom came from a home of neglect and incest) I am not sure how Montgomery having had a hard life is mitigating. I accept that persons suffering from , say paranoid schizophrenia, are not in control of their thoughts and behaviour yet, some of the worst crimes are committed by such people (for example, the killer of seven-year-old Emily Pierce [_sp?] who got a reduced charge of manslaughter, when she herself failed to take her medication and actually bought a knife in advance. It all seemed very calculated.
Having said that, I don't believe in the death penalty, except for the most egregious of crimes (for example, treason in a war). The other thing I object to is the fact the baby Montgomery tore out of an innocent young woman and stole is now sixteen years old. This indicates Montgomery has been in custody all of those years, which is more than the standard life sentence in Europe. (Anders Brevik got a maximum of twelve years, for example, although he the right to apply for parole and Norway just has to keep turning him down.)
So having already served 'life' it is just double punishment to also execute her, in addition.
Plus we know Trump is motivated by pure cruelty, which is not what justice should be about.