Ohio man excuted after vulgar last gesture

TXgolfer said:
So he functioned fine planning the murders and planning his get away, but pulling the trigger was just an episode right? :lol:
Click to expand...


1 name for you - Stephen Kazmierczak.
 
KarissaMann05 said:
I think the same thing, too. I don't think I want to live in prison for life if I have my illness and murder my beloved ones.

But, my view is a bit different. If someone tries to murder me, I would rather to end my life on my own first before he or she could take my life. I refuse to die in murder's hands. No, thanks. I really hate to think of how dead I would be in cold blood. But, If someone tries to murder children, I would kill someone first and go to jail! I refuse allow someone to take my beloved ones from me! But, if I am completely defenseless against someone that I can't save my kids, I would kill my kids and myself before someone would! I make so damn sure that I take my kids with me, so my kids won't dead in a murder's hands, period.

Call me crazy, but I see innocents dead in a murder's hands is painfully sorrow to me. Not that something I want for my own death... Not my relatives, either.
Click to expand...

Your post made me think of Masada.
 
shel90 said:
Sometimes, I think life in prison is worse punishment than death penality. However, on the other hand, are we a country who promotes the suffering of humans like some countries do?

Maybe the death penalty is the more humane way to do it..put these individuals out of their misery and leave no chance for them getting out in society again to murder our children.

Which one is right? If it was me and I was suffering from an illness that caused me to kill children, give me the death penaltiy rather than suffering from my illness in prison for the rest of my life.

That's just me.
Click to expand...

Life in prison is also cheaper than executing a person. I have seen a person in court beg for the death sentence. The judge did not give it to him.
 
Well, if they can do it right in nailing down the process to make it more efficient. Get everything done within a year's time or two and come up with a verdict, then I'm sure it'll be loads cheaper than to serve in prison for life.
 
kokonut said:
Well, if they can do it right in nailing down the process to make it more efficient. Get everything done within a year's time or two and come up with a verdict, then I'm sure it'll be loads cheaper than to serve in prison for life.
Click to expand...

The justice system have a lot to work on. I do not dispute that.
 
kokonut said:
Well, if they can do it right in nailing down the process to make it more efficient. Get everything done within a year's time or two and come up with a verdict, then I'm sure it'll be loads cheaper than to serve in prison for life.
Click to expand...

You're kidding right? Those safeguards are there for a reason. The number of innocent people that have spent years in prison only to be cleared of all charges at a later date is astounding.
 
jillio said:
You're kidding right? Those safeguards are there for a reason. The number of innocent people that have spent years in prison only to be cleared of all charges at a later date is astounding.
Click to expand...

Later date is because of the DNA technology.
 
Babyblue said:
Later date is because of the DNA technology.
Click to expand...

How does that change the fact that innocent people are in prison?

And many times, DNA is not even involved in an overturned conviction. The ones using DNA at a later date are usually rape cases.
 
The legal system isn't entirely streamlined nor efficient but that's what we have.

:dunno:
 
kokonut said:
The legal system isn't entirely streamlined nor efficient but that's what we have.

:dunno:
Click to expand...

Oh, so it's okay to execute innocent people just because, "Oh well. That's what we've got."

What moronic reasoning.
 
jillio said:
How does that change the fact that innocent people are in prison?

And many times, DNA is not even involved in an overturned conviction. The ones using DNA at a later date are usually rape cases.
Click to expand...

It was used in murder cases as well. Such as The Memphis Three .

More than half were released based on DNA results.
 
And that's part of the efficiency process in our legal system by using a proven process to help the case.
 
kokonut said:
And that's part of the efficiency process in our legal system by using a proven process to help the case.
Click to expand...

DNA proves innocence more than it proves guilt. And there are numerous cases where DNA would not be a factor at all. Still innocent people in prison.
 
Q. How often do DNA tests prove innocence in your cases? Does testing ever prove guilt?

A. Among our cases that go to DNA testing, the DNA proves our clients innocent about as often as it suggests they are guilty. In a review of Innocence Project cases that went to DNA testing and were then closed over a five-year period, DNA testing proved innocence in about 43% of cases, confirmed the prosecution theory in about 42% of cases, and was inconclusive or not probative in about 15% of cases.
Click to expand...

The Innocence Project - About Us: FAQs:How often do DNA tests prove innocence in your cases? Does testing ever prove guilt?
 
Back
Top