Snuff this SOB

[Boxlicker101]

Some people on this forum believe this guy should be kept in prison for the rest of his life. I agree, but I also believe that life should be brought to an end as soon as possible. Unfortunately, now some shysters will start parading dippy reasons why he should be allowed to continue to live and pollute the air that decent people have to breathe. None of those reasons will have any merit, but they will have to be listened to anyhow, giving the shysters nice paydays at taxpayer expense.

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-ohio-killer-11-deserves-die-150527403.html

 

[sr71plt]

What's your beef? The judge gave him the death sentence.

Do you just feel compelled to get huffy about things that didn't happen? That seems to be your habit.

 

[JackLuis]

Some people on this forum believe this guy should be kept in prison for the rest of his life. I agree, but I also believe that life should be brought to an end as soon as possible. Unfortunately, now some shysters will start parading dippy reasons why he should be allowed to continue to live and pollute the air that decent people have to breathe. None of those reasons will have any merit, but they will have to be listened to anyhow, giving the shysters nice paydays at taxpayer expense.

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-ohio-killer-11-deserves-die-150527403.html

But Box, this guy is a child of God and it would be wrong to just' take him out and shoot him,' although it would save a lot of money.

Maybe he could be used for IED clearing, you know, walk in front of the troops along the roads in Afghanistan. This way he'd serve a purpose and maybe save a soldier.

 

[Boxlicker101]

But Box, this guy is a child of God and it would be wrong to just' take him out and shoot him,' although it would save a lot of money.

Maybe he could be used for IED clearing, you know, walk in front of the troops along the roads in Afghanistan. This way he'd serve a purpose and maybe save a soldier.

I would prefer that he be hanged. That way, maybe some of his vital organs could be used for transplants. If he's put to death by lethal injection, the organs might not be usable.

You have the right idea, but the stuffy courts probably wouldn't go along with the idea.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Get back to us in a month and let us know if your "dippy shyster" prediction comes true.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Get back to us in a month and let us know if your "dippy shyster" prediction comes true.

I wouldn't describe shysters as dippy. Actually they tend to be pretty smart. However, the shysters' reasons for not offing this SOB are going to be dippy. By that, I mean some shyster will claim he was toilet-trained too soon or his mother used dope when she was PG or somebody farted during testimony or some other reason that will be totally irrelevant to whether he is guilty or not.

It's quite likely it won't happen in the next month, though.

 

[Handley_Page]

He seems to have absolutely nothing going in his favour, does he.
He's stupid enough to leave the bodies around his property !.

"Sowell's defense team, John Parker and Rufus Sims, rested without calling witnesses and instead focused on sparing his life with sympathetic testimony about his troubled childhood, his Marine Corps service and good behaviour while serving 15 years for attempted rape."

Gosh, I bet that was difficult. Pity he didn't learn 'good behaviour' whilst out of the Marines.

 

[Handley_Page]

I would prefer that he be hanged. That way, maybe some of his vital organs could be used for transplants. If he's put to death by lethal injection, the organs might not be usable.

You have the right idea, but the stuffy courts probably wouldn't go along with the idea.

Care to say how please?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I would prefer that he be hanged. That way, maybe some of his vital organs could be used for transplants. If he's put to death by lethal injection, the organs might not be usable.

You have the right idea, but the stuffy courts probably wouldn't go along with the idea.

Care to say how please?

You may or may not know it, but criminals like this used to be put to death by public hanging. I wish the nation would go back to doing that, including in this guy's case.

It's very unlikely to happen, but the state of Ohio might be able to reinstate public hanging. That would be a much better deterrent than any of the current methods being used.

 

[Instant_Star]

But Box, this guy is a child of God and it would be wrong to just' take him out and shoot him,' although it would save a lot of money.

Maybe he could be used for IED clearing, you know, walk in front of the troops along the roads in Afghanistan. This way he'd serve a purpose and maybe save a soldier.

I like that idea...

 

[sr71plt]

It's interesting how threads like this move toward revealing posters who have the same horrific bloodthirst gene of arousal and titilation with torturing others that the original criminal had.

 

[rgraham666]

Jail for the rest of his life works for me. I'm not that bloodthirsty.

 

[PennLady]

Jail for the rest of his life works for me. I'm not that bloodthirsty.

Nor am I. I don't hold with the death penalty, I've come to find. I don't think it does anything except overload an already burdened system. I know people complain of the appeals process, and no doubt it gets abused in some cases. However, this is a person's life you're ending; if (not in this case, obviously) it comes out the person is innocent, you can't take it back if you rush them to the chair, or noose, or what have you. I'd rather have them put away for life. According to some studies, doing that is in fact less expensive than keeping them on death row.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Actually, life without parole might well be a more sadistic punishment than quietly killing him. He's probably got another forty or so years to live. Imagine spending that in a cage . . .

 

[Boxlicker101]

Nor am I. I don't hold with the death penalty, I've come to find. I don't think it does anything except overload an already burdened system. I know people complain of the appeals process, and no doubt it gets abused in some cases. However, this is a person's life you're ending; if (not in this case, obviously) it comes out the person is innocent, you can't take it back if you rush them to the chair, or noose, or what have you. I'd rather have them put away for life. According to some studies, doing that is in fact less expensive than keeping them on death row.

If the system gets overloaded, it's also because of the appeals. The added expense is also because of all those appeals. I realize courts and juries make mistakes, and I believe there should be measures taken to eliminate such mistakes, but there are just too many feckless appeals now. Evidence that might prove innocense or even raise doubts as to guilt should always be heeded, but most appeals are on trumped up Constitutional grounds or on irrelevant facts about the defendant's background.

Having said that, I also believe testimony by snitches should be doubted and certain other prosecutorial tactics should be outlawed.

 

[LisbethElliot]

Well, here in California, it is definitely NOT less expensive to put someone to death.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/20/local/la-me-adv-death-penalty-costs-20110620

And yes, the costs are related to appeals, security, etc. But then, if we are to continue this practice, I want all those things in place to reduce the possiblity of an innocent person being executed...no matter how remote that possibility is. One is too many.

Ultimately, though, I try (sometimes with better success than others) to base my opinions on principle and not simply on economics. Or even on the horror evoked by these criminals and their crimes. And my opinion is that killing is wrong. I believe it's wrong for individuals to kill other innocent (or not-so-innocent) individuals. I believe it's wrong for the state to kill individuals.

 

[sr71plt]

I think the death penalty has its place (do I hear a gasp from Box? I've always said I didn't oppose the death penalty, though--but then his attention span, ya know . . .)--and that this is an instance where I think it fits. (Although, like VM, I think life without a chance at parol is more punishing.)

I don't however like to see folks get just as nasty and bloodthirsty about punishment as the original crime perpetrator was with the crime. It pretty much puts them in the same cage with him/her as far as gene pools and mentality.

 

[CarlusMagnus]

Wrong jurisdiction

Jail for the rest of his life works for me. I'm not that bloodthirsty

As I remarked in a Warren Jeffs thread somewhere recently, I just wish he could get sentenced to 150 years in the slammer---meaning that he actually had to live those 150 years. Unfortunately, the sentencing judge doesn't have that authority.

 

[TE999]

Unless they're kept in isolation, serial killers along with rapists and child molesters have a short shelf life in prison. Most of those guys in there have wives, kids and girlfriends, so they sympathize with the victims and their families and inflict some rough justice themselves.

 

[sr71plt]

Here we go with the jailhouse rape and shivving titilation again.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Box, you are confusing so many concepts that it is almost impossible to respond to your rant.

First, Ohio, like most other states that allow capital punishment, requires mandatory appellate review by the state Supreme Court of all cases where the death penalty is imposed.

Why is there mandatory review? In case you haven't noticed, there is no way to correct an execution after the fact. During the period of 2005-2009, there were 29 mandatory review proceedings for capital sentences in Ohio. Six were reversed on appeal by the Ohio Supreme Court--that's 21%. That means one out of five defendants were sentenced to death in flawed proceedings.

In addition, six more were reversed because the defendants were mentally retarded. In 2002, the United States Supreme Court banned the execution of mentally retarded defendants. The Court found imposition of the death penalty on the mentally retarded to be a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Atkins v. Virginia, (U.S. 2002).

Further reviews are only possible in Federal Courts on a Habeas Corpus Petition. During the 2005-2009 period, ten more cases in Ohio were reversed when Federal District and Circuit Courts granted habeas petitions. Habeas petitions raise constitutional grounds (most often ineffective assistance of counsel, failure to exclude improperly obtained evidence, and confrontation issues).

Now I realize that most advocates of the death penalty want to see it carried out the day after the trial ends, but the U.S. Constitution contains certain guarantees to all citizens, foremost of which for this discussion is the right to a fair trial. When that right is violated, it is the function of the higher courts to correct these violations.

Second, Box, these are not "shyster" lawyers taking these appeals. Appellate attorneys in death cases have to be experienced in death cases, and must take mandatory training in handling death cases.

The arguments that can be raised in the appellate process are limited. In the State phase, review is limited to the record in the trial court. NO NEW EVIDENCE CAN BE SUBMITTED.

In the Federal Courts, the arguments are constitutional. This is also the part where new evidence is often raised, usually relating to witnesses recanting testimony and "confessions" from other inmates. These appeals often drive people crazy, but when you consider the irrevocable nature of the death penalty, shouldn't all matters be considered?

It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives and libertarians so adoringly worship the constitution, yet decry the application of it in favor of the criminally accused. If you take a few minutes and actually read it, you will find that all of it's criminal provisions are written so as to protect the rights of the accused.

Given the number of convictions that have been vacated nationwide due to the introduction of newly discovered DNA evidence, doesn't it make sense to approach the death penalty with circumspection, rather than bloodlust?

Under the Ohio constitution, this guy has an absolute right to a mandatory appeal. It cannot be waived. However, given the fact that his attorneys put on no witnesses, how long is that appeal going to take? And unless someone can raise an ineffective assistance of counsel argument, his Federal appeals are not going to take much longer, either. If his counsel was ineffective, then why shouldn't he get a new trial? He has a constitutional right to a fair trial. Wouldn't you expect the same if you were accused of a crime?

If the government were to violate your constitutional rights, are you going to present your claims in Federal Court yourself, or are you going to hire the best attorney you can find?

 

[PennLady]

What sofflabblvr said. Way more than I know or would have time to find out. Thanks for doing the research.

 

[sr71plt]

All of which is wasted on those who should be absorbing it, unfortunately.

I too just shake my head at those claiming to embrace every word of the Constitution--without showing evidence they've even read it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box, you are confusing so many concepts that it is almost impossible to respond to your rant.

First, Ohio, like most other states that allow capital punishment, requires mandatory appellate review by the state Supreme Court of all cases where the death penalty is imposed.

Why is there mandatory review? In case you haven't noticed, there is no way to correct an execution after the fact. During the period of 2005-2009, there were 29 mandatory review proceedings for capital sentences. Six were reversed on appeal by the Ohio Supreme Court--that's 21%. That means one out of five defendants were sentenced to death in flawed proceedings.

In addition, six more reversed because the defendants were mentally retarded. In 2002, the United States Supreme Court banned the execution of mentally retarded defendants. The Court found imposition of the death penalty on the mentally retarded to be a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Atkins v. Virginia, (U.S. 2002).

Further reviews are only possible in Federal Courts on a Habeas Corpus Petition. During the 2005-2009 period, ten more cases in Ohio were reversed when Federal District and Circuit Courts granted habeas petitions. Habeas petitions raise constitutional grounds (most often inaffective assistance of counsel, failure to exclude improperly obtained evidence, and confrontation issues).

Now I realize that most advocates of the death penalty want to see it carried out the day after the trial ends, but the U.S. Constitution contains certain guarantees to all citizens, foremost of which for this discusion is the right to a fair trial. When that right is violated, it is the function of the higher courts to correct these violations.

Second, Box, these are not "shyster" lawyers taking these appeals. Appellate attorneys in death cases have to be experienced in death cases, and must take mandatory training in handling death cases.

The arguments that can be raised in the appellate process are limited. In the State phase, review is limited to the record in the trial court. NO NEW EVIDENCE CAN BE SUBMITTED.

In the Federal Courts, the arguments are constitutional. This is also the part where new evidence is often raised, usually relating to witnesses recanting testimony and "confessions" from other inmates. These appeals often drive people crazy, but when you consider the irrevocable nature of the death penalty, shouldn't all matters be considered?

It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives and libertarians so adoringly worship the constitution, yet decry the application of it in favor of the criminally accused. If you take a few minutes and actually read it, you will find that all of it's criminal provisions are written so as to protect the rights of the accused.

Given the number of convictions that have been vacated nationwide due to the introduction of DNA evidence, doesn't it make sense to approach the death penalty with circumspection, rather than with bloodlust?

Under the Ohio constitution, this guy has an absolute right to a mandatory appeal. It cannot be waived. However, given the fact that his attorneys put on no witnesses, how long is that appeal going to take? And unless someone can raise an ineffective assistance of counsel argument, his Federal appeals are not going to take much longer, either. If his counsel was ineffective, then why shouldn't he get a new trial? He has a constitutional right to a fair trial. Wouldn't you expect the same if you were accused of a crime?

I have absolutely no problem with allowing ONE appeal on Constitutional or procedural grounds. I realize putting somebody to death is a serious thing and all due care must be taken. I also believe there should be any number of appeals when exculpatory evidence arises.

You mentioned 29 cases over a period of four or five years. How many of those defendants were shown to have been wrongly convicted? That is, how many were actually innocent?

I am more knowledgeable about CA, where Death Row prisoners have virtually unlimited appeals, some of them for reasons most people consider trivial. I refer to dishonest or unethical lawyers as "shysters." They may be highly intelligent and capable, but that does not make them honest. They are the ones who make the numerous appeals on flimsy or no grounds, and serve no purpose but to enrich themselves and delay justice. They are trying to help their clients to - literally - get away with murder.

In the case in the OP, there is no possibility of innocence.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

I have absolutely no problem with allowing ONE appeal on Constitutional or procedural grounds. I realize putting somebody to death is a serious thing and all due care must be taken. I also believe there should be any number of appeals when exculpatory evidence arises.

You mentioned 29 cases over a period of four or five years. How many of those defendants were shown to have been wrongly convicted? That is, how many were actually innocent?

I am more knowledgeable about CA, where Death Row prisoners have virtually unlimited appeals, some of them for reasons most people consider trivial. I refer to dishonest or unethical lawyers as "shysters." They may be highly intelligent and capable, but that does not make them honest. They are the ones who make the numerous appeals on flimsy or no grounds, and serve no purpose but to enrich themselves and delay justice. They are trying to help their clients to - literally - get away with murder.

In the case in the OP, there is no possibility of innocence.

In Ohio, at least one case resulted in an outright dismissal of charges.

Nationwide, Columbia Law School Professor James S. Liebman found that for the period of 1973-1995, 68% of all death row appeals resulted in reversals. Eighty-two percent of those cases resulted in a different result on remand, and 7% of all cases resulted in outright acquittal. Ohio State Law Journal.

The seven percent figure is significant. That means that over the 23 year period this author reviewed, at least 140 innocent people were sentenced to death. Many thousands more were sentenced to death in cases where the death penalty was not a legal option.

Reducing the appeals process to a single proceeding may sound attractive, but it does not solve the problem. State courts and federal courts do not have identical jurisdiction in death cases. That's why in Ohio, the federal procedure cannot commence until the state process is concluded.

Moreover, according to Liebman, 40% of the reversals occurred in Federal courts after two appeals had already concluded. Under your single review proposal, 40% of the errors would never have been corrected. This is simply too high of an error rate to ignore.

The constitution guarantees the same rights to all defendants--the guilty as well as the innocent.