Angela McAnulty's jury verdict.

Recently Angela McAnulty was sentenced to death by the jury at her trial. In case you are not familiar with the case, this mother killed her 15 year old daughter. She had tortured, starved, and beaten her. Her actions towards her daughter were atrocious and sickening. You can find the basics on it here. If you want to read more, you can search her name on that site.. It should be mentioned that DHS had been called multiple times and after a brief visit, dismissed the case. If they would have asked to see her room, I don't see how they could have dismissed it and therefore Jeanette would still be alive.

According to the news, the jury was to decide the following...

1. Did McAnulty deliberately kill Jeanette Maples?
2. Is it likely that McAnulty will re-offend? Meaning, will she be a danger to society? 

3. Did McAnulty kill her daughter without being provoked by her daughter?

These first three questions had to be answered beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the jury unanimously answered yes to all three questions, they would then have to answer a fourth:

Should McAnulty be sentenced to death?

To make that decision, the jury had to take into account factors from McAnulty's life and answer another question:

Were there mitigating circumstances? For example, should her punishment be less severe because of troubles in her own life, or mental health issues, etc.

I have been reading in the news forum on KVAL's site and am saddened. First of all, I want to make it known that I do not condone what this woman did to her poor child. I think it is sick and despicable and unimaginable... I don't believe in the death penalty to begin with, never have... Now that I am working to follow a Buddhist path, it is even more so that I think sentencing her to death was the wrong thing to do. It was reported that when the verdict was read, many of the jury members wept. Angela McAnulty seemed unaffected. Two of the prime beliefs in Buddhism is to practice compassion and to see a potential Buddha in everyone. I was not part of the jury and I was not in the courtroom to hear the testimony and see the evidence.. I realize that that would have been very hard to bear witness to. I have thought long and hard about what verdict I would have fought for. Let me go through the options and the things that I considered about each.

-Death penalty- 

Death is really kind of an easy way out for someone. Part of me says that what she did is deserving of horrible retribution. Then the part fighting to become a better, more compassionate person, says that that thinking is not good. In any case, my biggest debate on this option was whether it was more compassionate than the other options.. However, I also believe that all the people involved in making that decision, do not deserve the heart ache that it would (and did) cause them. Not to mention the Dr. who would (maybe) eventually carry out the execution.. He/she got into that job knowing what it would entail, and maybe thinks their ok with it, but I still wouldn't want to be a part of putting them into a position to take someones life. If they really were ok with it, that is even worse... for the jury members and the executioner.. So, NO on the death penalty.

-Life in prison without possibility of parole- 

I was pretty sure on this one being the one I would choose, for quite some time. I question myself because of my feelings about what she did vs my Buddhist belief that there is a potential Buddha in everyone. This verdict, in my honest opinion, is the least compassionate. It would mean that she would be locked away somewhere for the rest of her life with not a whole lot to do or think about but what got her there. The less compassionate side of me says she deserves that. The more compassionate side of me says that maybe after 30 years she will have changed her life around and decided to dedicate her life for good. My hubby said that there are convicts that do that from the inside, that she does not have to be free from prison walls to accomplish that. In any case, that inner debate of mine got me to thinking about the more compassionate sentence of life in prison with possibility of parole after 30 years. So lets explore that

-Life in prison with possibility of parole after 30 years- 

Like I said above, this is the more compassionate verdict for Angela McAnulty than life without parole. In 30 years, when her chance for parole came up, she would be something like 72 years old. The chances of her re offending would be slim to none. I took a criminal justice class and they said that anyone over a certain age is statistically unlikely to re offend. With a 'NO' answer to whether she was likely to re offend, the death penalty would be taken off the table, so one of the life sentences would be the only options. In this case, I have to agree with the defense that her crime was sort of limited to a certain situation and person, as far as the physical abuse was concerned anyways. The other kids being around for it and directed to gather things for the abuse, was in essence, abuse in itself..

In the end, I decided it would have to be one of the life sentences.. I can't say for sure which one though. It sort of changes day to day and sometimes moment to moment, even, depending on how compassionate I am feeling. Either way, I think that the other jurors and I would have been able to sleep better, knowing that she wasn't going to hurt anyone again and we didn't have to take part in her death to ensure it.

Next up: Why the comments on this story made me so sad!

Having a Path

Life takes us places we don't expect. For instance, my mother had an adult foster care home and while I enjoyed visiting with the people she cared for, I never really thought about doing a similar job. Yet, here I am, doing in home (theirs, not mine) care giving. At the moment, my only client lives an hour away and I work a 48 hr shift. I mention this because 48 hrs out in the middle of virtually nowhere, gives one ample time to do many things, thinking included. I have been thinking a lot lately. My husband has been a philosophical Buddhist for many years. I have waffled back and forth with the idea. While I appreciated the basics that I knew of it, I never really committed to the practice of learning all that can be learned. I suppose it was because of laziness, more than anything or maybe it just wasn't the right time. I am ready now. I need to do this, for many reasons. I need to do it for me, my family, and (as corny as it may sound) for the world. All of those things are interconnected and I fail to see how becoming a better person for everyone can be a bad thing. I am just one fiber in the fabric of life. I know that I will not be able to fix all the tears, holes, and frayed seams. I hope that strengthening my little thread will help others strengthen theirs and it will spread like a ripple started by a pebble.

I used to be a very selfish person. I still have selfish tendencies, but nothing like they used to be. When I was young I would see documentaries on famous people who had died and they would interview all their friends, family, and colleagues. Those people would say beautiful things about the individual who had passed. I wanted that. I wanted to be famous so that when I died, they would make a documentary about me and say beautiful things about me. The problem with that dream was that it was a selfish dream. It was all about me me me. I, no longer need or want to be famous. I DO want to be great. Even if I am not recognized for whatever deeds I do, that make me great. Although, I will admit there are times I struggle with this at work.

I was raised Catholic. Buddhism, in the eyes of those who understand it, is not a religion, per se. Buddha was just a man, like Jesus, who had a higher understanding of things. Just like Jesus, in Christianity, people choose to follow Buddha's teachings. There are definitely differences between Buddhism and Christianity, but they are more alike than a lot of people realize. I have found less inconsistencies in Buddhist writings, than in Christian ones, which is something that has always kind of turned me off of following a Christian belief system. One of the bigger differences of the 2 belief systems, is what life leads to. In Christianity, when one dies, they either go to Heaven or Hell. In Buddhism the goal is Enlightenment, which looked at abstractly could be considered Heaven. However, the path to Enlightenment is not a one life time thing. One is reborn as many times as needed, to continue learning, until they reach enlightenment. On one hand, this seems a mighty long, tedious and nearly impossible task. On the other hand, it seems so very simple and oddly obtainable. I'm, sure I am but a fledgling soul, with lifetime's to go, before I reach enlightenment.

It is ironic, in my opinion, that the person that I think of when I think 'enlightened', wasn't even Buddhist; she was Catholic. Mother Theresa. There is a reason the Catholic Church nominated her to be recognized a Saint. It is a shame that more people, of any religion, or belief system, are not more like her. Like the Dali Lama, she was truely great.

So, my choice to delve into Buddhism to learn, grow, and in an effort to be great, is born. 

[IMG]http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac267/andrew_riley/D90/D90_Sample-2.jpg[/IMG]