What they said ... `Even though I did murder ... that night and not think anything of it back then, it is now the one thing I regret most in my life' Karla Tucker, executed for murder in February, 1998
`Let's not forget that this same Miss Prim and Proper was swinging a pickaxe 14 years ago' Richard Thornton, husband of one of Karla Tucker's victims
At 6.45 local time, on February 4, 1998, Karla Tucker died as the result of a lethal injection. She was 38. She was executed in the prison at Huntsville, a small town north of Houston, Texas. She was the first person to be executed in Texas this year, and the first woman to be executed in Texas for 134 years. She was only the second woman to be executed in the United States since capital punishment was reintroduced in 1976.
Her execution attracted enormous public attention both within the United States and around the world. Representations were made on her behalf by Pope John Paul, by Amnesty International and the European Council. Large numbers of American lobby groups campaigned against her death and some prominent representatives of Christian groups in America which normally supported capital punishment attempted to have her sentence commuted.
Supporters of capital punishment, on the other hand, saw this as an opportunity to defend their views.
Background
Karla Tucker and Daniel Garrett were convicted in 1983 of the murder of Jerry Dean and Deborah Thornton. The two victims were bludgeoned to death by Tucker and Garrett using a hammer and a pickaxe. Before the killings Karla Tucker and Daniel Garrett had gone on what has been referred to in some reports as `a three-day drug binge'. They claimed to have gone to Jerry Dean's house intending to check it out prior to stealing a motorbike.
Both Garrett and Tucker were found guilty of murder and each was sentenced to death.
Karla Thornton remained in prison for 14 years before her execution. Daniel Garrett died in prison of a liver disease.
Karla Tucker claimed to have undergone a religious conversion soon after being taken into custody. She claimed it was a completely life-altering experience. As a born-again Christian, she received praise for the counselling work she did with other prisoners and two years before her death she married the prison pastor. The marriage was never consummated as death row prisoners in Texas are not permitted to have physical contact of any form with any visitor.
The recent history of the death penalty in the United States
In 1976 the United States Supreme Court cleared the way for the re-introduction of capital punishment by declaring it was not unconstitutional.
Texas re-instituted the death penalty in 1982. Since then, including Karla Tucker, 146 people have been executed in that state. Thirty-six American states now have the death penalty and last year 74 people were executed, 37 of them in Texas.
Across the United States more than 3,000 people await execution. Some have waited for years as a result of the elaborate appeals process. Of this number, some 420 are to be executed in Texas, 470 in California, 380 in Florida and 210 in Pennsylvania.
There are a number of protest groups seeking to have capital punishment revoked. Some are state-based, some are national. There are equally prominent groups supporting its retention.
On the question of gender, Karla Tucker's lawyers specifically stated that the fact she was a woman should have no bearing on her appeals process and they were not seeking clemency on this basis.
Historically very few women have been executed in the United States. The last woman executed was in 1985.
Women commit far fewer crimes that could attract the death penalty and even where they have committed a potentially capital offence are, it is claimed, generally less likely to be executed.
It has been argued that one of the reasons Karla Tucker's case attracted such attention was her gender.
There are an enormous number of Internet sites dealing with capital punishment and a very large number looking at the case of Karla Tucker. One of the best general sites is the Justice Center Web Site, produced by the University of Alaska Anchorage. The relevant section is titled Focus on the Death Penalty.
It looks at capital punishment under a range of headings, including
1. deterrence,
2. retribution & justice for murder victims;
3. executing the innocent;
4. the cost of the death penalty; and,
5. the impact of the death penalty on specific populations, including women, juveniles and mentally retarded or insane persons.
There are nine headings in all. An explanatory paragraph follows each heading and then there is a list of clickable links to authoritative comment and information relevant to the particular heading. This site deals with capital punishment as it operates in the United States, however, much of the comment is applicable to a general discussion of the issue.
Another very good source of relevant links is Yahoo! Full Coverage: US News: This site has sections dealing with
1. Texas executions
2. Karla Faye Tucker's execution
3. other related web sites
There are useful clickable information sources listed under each of these headings. Included here is a click-through to the last interview given by Karla Tucker before her execution. There are also click-throughs to a range of editorials dealing with the Karla Tucker case and to sites presenting arguments for and against capital punishment.
Also of interest is Amnesty International's Abolition of the Death Penalty site. It outlines Amnesty International's reasons for opposing capital punishment and gives information about the death penalty both in the United States and around the world.
Finally, one of the death penalty news sites, dated Saturday, December 17, 1997, includes a detailed interview with Robert Thornton, the husband of the woman whom Karla Tucker murdered. In the interview Mr Thornton explains why he wants to see Karla Tucker executed.
Arguments against capital punishment as an appropriate penalty
In the case of Karla Tucker, the principal argument offered against capital punishment is that it was unnecessary as Ms Tucker had reformed her life and was no longer a threat to society.
According to this line of argument, capital punishment denies the possiblility of rehabilitation, or a change of heart in the person who committed a crime.
In a plea she wrote to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, Karla Tucker claimed, `Even though I did murder ... that night and not think anything of it back then, it is now the one thing I regret most in my life.'
The same point was made by David Botsford, one of Ms Tucker's attorneys. Mr Botsford has said, `She may be the same physical person she was when the case was tried, but she is clearly not the same person. She is totally rehabilitated and her prison record supports that.'
According to this line of argument, if one of the reasons for the death penalty is to prevent a criminal re-offending then that reason is no longer valid if the one-time offender has been rehabilitated, regrets their crime and is unlikely to offend again.
Even where rehabilitation has not occurred, opponents of capital punishment maintain that society can be protected by sentencing the offender to life imprisonment.
Critics of capital punishment also maintain that it is not an appropriate penalty because mistakes can be made and an innocent person might be executed.
One of those who campaigned against Ms Tucker's execution, Mr Rolando Cruz, spent 12 years on death row before it was finally established that he was innocent of the crime for which he had been convicted and sentenced to death. Mr Cruz has pointed out that he could easily have been executed for a crime he did not commit.
In the case of Karla Tucker it was not claimed that Ms Tucker did not commit the crime, however, it was disputed that it should have been treated as first degree murder.
According to this line of argument, neither Karla Tucker nor Daniel Garrett went to Jerry Dean's house with the intention of killing him. They had not, it is claimed, even expected him to be home. Instead they went to his house as part of a plan to steal a motorbike. It is also claimed that both were so affected by drugs and alcohol that they were not fully responsible for the crime they committed.
Those who hold this view maintain that Karla Tucker did not commit a premeditated murder and so should not have received the death penalty.
It has also been claimed that capital punishment does not make proper allowance for the life circumstances which may have distorted a person's personality so that they became capable of murder.
It has been claimed that Ms Tucker was introduced to heroine at ten and to prostitution at 12. At the time of the murders she was a twenty-three year old prostitute, a drug addict and involved with a biker gang.
According to this line of argument, Ms Tucker, and indeed many who have committed capital crimes and been executed, should have been shown clemency because their difficult lives, for which they were not responsible, had pre-disposed them to commit a crime.
Those opposed to capital punishment also maintain that it is a socially inequitable form of punishment, in that a disproportionate number of those found guilty of murder and sentenced to death belong to racial minorities, are juveniles, are mentally retarded or are socially disadvantaged.
It has claimed that had Ms Tucker not been a drug-addicted prostitute at the time she was tried and sentenced she may have been treated more leniently.
Mr Roger Rathman, a spokesperson for Amnesty International, a world-wide lobby group opposed to inhuman and unjust forms of punishment and imprisonment, has claimed, `It is not just innocent people who are being executed, but the mentally retarded, juveniles, racial minorities and the poor.'
On the question of the economics of punishment, it has been claimed that it is cheaper to keep a person in prison for life than it is to go through the lengthy appeal process which frequently accompanies death sentences.
It has also been claimed that capital punishment is ineffective as a deterrent rate as countries, such as America, which employ capital punishment, still have high murder rates.
Finally there are those who argue that the state has no more right to take a human life than has the person who is being punished.
The importance of respecting all human life was stressed by Karla Tucker. She claimed that if Christians opposed abortion and euthanasia because of their respect for life, then they should also oppose capital punishment.
Mr Cruz has claimed that the state has no moral or ethical right to commit a crime to punish a crime.
`If we say the government has the right to kill, then does the government have the right to rape the rapist or the rapist's mother?` We are hypocrites to allow [the state] to murder in our name.'
Arguments in favour of capital punishment as an appropriate penalty
On the question of rehabilitation, there are two responses from those who support capital punishment. The first response is to question the sincerity of a criminal's supposed rehabilitation.
According to this line of argument, a prisoner could very well fake a change of attitude, particularly if he or she believed that such a pretence could lead to a commuting of the death sentence.
This is the position held by Mr Richard Thornton, the husband of the woman Karla Tucker murdered.
Mr Thornton appears to believe that genuine rehabilitation is virtually impossible for anyone capable of committing the crimes to which Karla Tucker has confessed.
Mr Thornton has called Ms Ticker a `monster' and has been reported as saying, `She [Karla Thornton] is and was a horrible person.'
On the other hand, there are those who do not doubt that a prisoner's rehabilitation may be genuine, yet hold that such rehabilitation makes no difference to the nature of the crime that was committed, nor to the punishment that is to be received..
This is the position apparently held by the Governor of Texas, George Bush junior. Mr Bush has declared that while Ms Tucker's return to Christian faith is welcome, it makes no difference to the judicial process.
Mr Bush has stated that the only considerations that are relevant are procedural ones. That is, `Is the inmate's guilt in question?' And `Did that inmate receive fair access to the courts?'
According to this line of argument, the law stipulates that a person be punished in a particular manner for a particular crime. Later regret does not undo the crime or alter the appointed punishment.
This argument has been put by Robert Thornton, who claims that what is significant is the crime and the guilt of the person who committed it.
Mr Thornton has said, `Let's not forget that this same Miss Prim and Proper was swinging a pickaxe 14 years ago. I'm still waiting for the State of Texas to bring that heinous person, that monster, to final justice.'
This argument is closely related to the belief that capital punishment is just punishment, in that it is the only form of punishment that is suitable for some particularly serious crimes.
According to this line of argument, if, for example, a person takes the life of another the only form of punishment which corresponds to the severity of the crime is that the murderer forfeit his or her own life.
This point has been made by Mr Richard Thornton. Mr Thornton appeared to object to the possibility of Ms Tucker being able to enjoy her life when her actions took away the life of his wife, Deborah Thornton.
On the question of what constitutes appropriate punishment, there are those who argue that the families of murder victims are also victims of the crime and that the punishment needs to take their suffering into account.
Robert Thornton has stated that the only prospect that gives him peace is that of Ms Tucker's death. He has stated that only once she is dead will there be hope of `closure' for him and his two grown-up children.
The state of Texas appears to acknowledge the importance of the execution for the families of the victims, as it allows immediate relatives of victims to attend and observe the execution.
It has also been claimed that capital punishment has the capacity to act as a deterrent. Those who hold this view maintain that it sends a message to all potential murderers that if they commit such a crime they are endangering their own lives.
It has further been suggested that the state should not be put to the expense of having to support for life, in a high security environment, people who have taken the lives of others.
According to this line of argument, those who commit capital crimes have no right to expect that the state maintain them in prison for the rest of their lives.
Further, it has been suggested, that there is little real mercy in commuting the death sentence to life in prison, as, for some prisoners, such a penalty would be more onerous than death.
This point has been made by Anne Waldron Neumann, a research associate in history at the University of Melbourne.
Ms Waldron has stated, `... capital punishment [is not] always the most cruel option. One wonders about the years of imprisonment Martin Bryant faces in near total isolation, where his limited capacities will rapidly deteriorate.'
Further implications
It is very difficult to predict what will be the probable impact of Karla Tucker's execution.
There are those who claim that the controversy surrounding her case has revitalised the debate on the death sentence and made it more likely that its application may be reviewed and perhaps revoked. Certainly numbers of prominent people normally in favour of the death penalty spoke out against it in her case.
Others claim that the reaction to Karla Tucker's death is likely to be restricted to that particular case, which they claim was unusual because of Ms Tucker's gender, her reconversion to Christianity and the fact that she was both articulate and physically attractive.
There are even those who have claimed that because Ms Tucker's execution went ahead despite all the protests against it, Texas and other states are likely to be more ready to carry out executions in the future, including executions of women.
Texas carried out its second execution for the year only days after Karla Tucker's. Steven Ceon Renfro was executed for a triple murder, having waived all rights to appeal. His case attracted very little public attention.
Two more women are scheduled to be executed this year, one in Florida and the other in Texas. Neither have given media interviews and one has requested all appeals be stopped. The attention these cases attract and the fate of these women will be significant.
Currently, the readiness to execute prisoners is increasing in the United States. Given the enormous number of people now waiting on death row, that is, perhaps, to be expected. There appear to be two courses open to American legislatures. The first is to overturn capital punishment, the second is to streamline and perhaps restrict the appeals process.
This second alternative is being considered by some states.
Karla Tucker suggested reforms of the prison system which would make rehabilitation of prisoners more likely. These included paying prisoners for the work they do and then having them pay for the food and other services they receive in prison.
Ms Tucker's suggestions seem unlikely to be acted on.
Sources The Age
30/1/98 page 9 news item by Hilary Hylton, `Texas court rejects woman's death row appeal'
31/1/98 page 22 analysis by Anne Pressley, `14 years on, is this woman still a killer?'
1/2/98 page 9 news item by Charles Laurence, `Execution ritual begins as Tucker appeal fails'
3/2/98 page 8 news item, `Pending execution prompts Texas death penalty rethink'
4/2/98 page 10 news item by Charles Laurence, `Pickaxe killer a step away from execution'
5/2/98 page 1 news item by Alan Attwood, `I am going to be face to face with Jesus now'
5/2/98 page 11 news item by Gustav Niebuhr, `Christian right rethinks death penalty'
5/2/98 page 15 comment by Allan Massie, `Why it is worse to kill a woman'
5/2/98 page 15 comment by Anne Waldon, `The case for equality in death'
11/2/98 page 15 news item, `US to execute more women'
The Australian
17/1/98 page 17 news item, `With God on side, axe murderer tries to swing a pardon'
31/1/98 page 19 analysis by Robert Lusetich, `Dead woman walking'
4/2/98 page 10 news item by Robert Lusetich, `Clemency bid fails for death-rower'
4/2/98 page 10 news item, `New life in death penalty debate'
4/2/98 page 12 editorial, `Woman's execution raises gender issue'
5/2/98 page 1 news item by Robert Lusetich, `Texas sends Tucker to higher authority'
5/2/98 page 13 analysis by Robert Lusetich, `A death foretold'
5/2/98 page 15 comment by Paul Wilson, `Female murderers discover that chivalry isn't dead'
The Herald Sun
24/1/98 page 7 (Weekend section) analysis by John Beveridge, `Fall of the axe'
4/2/98 page 23 news item by John Beveridge, `Execution go-ahead'
5/2/98 page 19 comment by Jill Singer, `Evil Karla reforms ... and is executed'
5/2/98 page 28 news item by John Beveridge, `Killer dies with a prayer'
8/2/98 page 34 analysis by Tom Skotnicki, `Penalty "is murder"'
8/2/98 page 42 editorial, `A prayer for life'
9/2/98 page 20 three letters to the editor published under the heading, `Equal rights, equal justice'
10/2/98 page 20 letter to the editor, `Blood on their hands'
11/2/98 page 18 comments by Babette Francis and Lesley Vick, `Is conversion to Christianity a valid reason for clemency?'
Internet
* It appears that the English Board of Studies may be refining its guidelines on the use of Internet sources for CAT I.
* Currently it is probably preferable for students to restrict their use of Internet sources to Part 2 of CAT I.
* Please consult your teacher for direction on this matter.
There is an enormous number of Internet sites dealing with capital punishment and a very large number looking at the case of Karla Tucker.
One of the best general sites is the Justice Center Web Site, produced by the University of Alaska Anchorage. The relevant section is titled Focus on the Death Penalty. It can be found at http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/just/death/issues.html.
It looks at capital punishment under a range of headings, including
1. deterrence,
2. retribution & justice for murder victims;
3. executing the innocent;
4. the cost of the death penalty; and,
5. the impact of the death penalty on specific populations, including women, juveniles and mentally retarded or insane persons.
There are nine headings in all. An explanatory paragraph follows each heading and then there is a list of clickable links to authoritative comment and information relevant to the particular heading. This site deals with capital punishment as it operates in the United States, however much of the comment is applicable to a general discussion of the issue.
Another very good source of relevant links is Yahoo! Full Coverage: US News: This site has sections dealing with
1. Texas executions
2. Karla Faye Tucker's execution
3. other related web sites
There are useful clickable information sources listed under each of these headings. Included here is a click-through to the last interview given by Karla Tucker before her execution. There are also click-throughs to a range of editorials dealing with the Karla Tucker case and to sites presenting arguments for and against capital punishment. These can be found at http://headlines.yahoo.com/Full_Coverage/US/Texas_Executions/
Also of interest is Amnesty International's Abolition of the Death Penalty site. This can be found at http://www.inetport.com/~ai500/DP.html. It outlines Amnesty Internal's reasons for opposing capital punishment and gives information about the death penalty both in the United States and around the world.
Finally, one of the death penalty news sites, dated Saturday, December 17, 1997, includes a detailed interview with Robert Thornton, the husband of the woman whom Karla Tucker murdered. In the interview Mr Thornton explains why he wants to see Karla Tucker executed. This interview can be found at http://www.legalminds.org/mailsaver/deathpenalty/id57326291.html
Back to previous page
