Tulsa, Oklahoma — George John Hanson, who was convicted for the 1999 murder of a 77-year-old woman, has been returned to Oklahoma after serving time in a Louisiana federal prison. Known also as John Fitzgerald Hanson, he was transferred to the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester this past Saturday, a move coordinated by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections at the request of the state’s Attorney General, Gentner Drummond.
Hanson was found guilty of kidnapping and subsequently murdering Mary Bowles following a carjacking incident at a Tulsa shopping mall. According to authorities, Hanson and an accomplice drove Bowles to a remote dirt pit near Owasso where she was fatally shot. The same accomplice killed Jerald Max Thurman, a witness to Bowles’ abduction and murder. Following his conviction, Hanson received a death sentence from a Tulsa County jury, while concurrently serving a life sentence in federal custody for a separate bank robbery charge.
The return of Hanson to Oklahoma marks a significant step towards the state’s intention to proceed with his execution. Attorney General Drummond expressed his satisfaction with the transfer, noting that previous attempts had been stalled by the federal administration. Drummond extended his thanks to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and the federal Bureau of Prisons for their cooperation.
In a public statement, Drummond conveyed his relief and gratitude, particularly on behalf of the victim’s family and friends, stating, “The wait for justice has been a long and frustrating one.” He noted that the transfer aligns with a broader federal emphasis on enforcing capital punishment as evidenced by an executive order from President Trump issued the same week as Hanson’s transfer request.
Drummond’s office is now poised to petition the state Court of Criminal Appeals to set an execution date for Hanson, expected to be later this year. This next step is part of a lengthier judicial process intended to conclude a case that has extended over two decades.
The case draws attention again to issues surrounding the death penalty in the United States, a matter of ongoing debate among advocates and critics alike. Proponents argue that capital punishment serves as a deterrent against heinous crimes and delivers justice to victims’ families. On the other hand, opponents raise concerns about the morality and ethics of state-sanctioned death, potential judicial errors, and the execution method itself.
This case reiterates the complexities and emotional weight of pursuing justice in capital punishment cases, embodying broader national discussions on crime, punishment, and rehabilitation in the American legal system. As this particular case progresses, it will likely continue to serve as a touchstone in debates over the future of the death penalty in America.