Supreme Court says Ohio killer should die | The Columbus Dispatch

Overturning a decision last year by a federal appeals court in Cincinnati, the U.S. Supreme Court today reinstated the death sentence of a Cincinnati killer convicted of murdering a man he met in a gay bar.

[Sick of the BS]

Kill em....get on with it

[stormyggirl]

Why in heavens name can't we amend our constitution to allow one trial and one appeal? This constant appealing of sentences or the competency of an attorney is ridiculous. All they are doing is delaying their death sentence. Good grief this man died over twenty years ago and the man that killed him is still alive. I'm getting so sick of the leniency that courts are showing towards all criminals!!!!!

[i agree]

makes no sense, it was an obvious I killed this person intentionally. Even have an admision of guilt.. Makes no sense, wasting tax payers money and not terminating this guy.. Again the waste of people in the name of stupidity.

[jay]

That's right trash.........don't mess with us homo's!

[Meow]

Went toa gay bar???? Don't forget, after he is executed add on the number of years for a hate crime.

[Fielding Melish]

He DID have incompetent counsel. The non-jury trial giveaway could have been exchanged for no-death in sentencing.
So what? He didn't have to kill the guy. Who knows? Maybe his mark had a weapon or knew how to fight and a desperate struggle ensued.That would have been a little bit of mitigation that would have made a no-death deal at least possible.
Besides that;25 years for this to drag out is an embarrassment.
This is a "System"?

[SW Cbus]

There is a double digit percentage of people who confess to crimes they didn't commit, and have later been exonorated.

There are also a large number of cases where someone has been found guilty by a jury and later exonorated by DNA evidence.

It is also a lot costlier, 2x to 3x as much, to execute someone then it is to keep them in prison for life.

Ohio should save itself money and do away with the death penalty.

[Guard Dawg]

It is only more expensive to execute someone because the appeals process takes so long. And it should take a long time...all take sure to be taken to ensure a correct conviction...twenty five years, however, is ridiculous.

[Guard Dawg]

Not sure what happened to my grammar, but I was saying that we should allow criminals to appeal their convictions, and sentences and make sure that we have a just conviction. Then give 'em the juice. Speeding up the process will cut down on the cost. Getting rid of the death penalty is a bad idea.

[maggie]

He was probably lucky not to be convicted of a hate crime.

[Mike]

maggie wrote:

He was probably lucky not to be convicted of a hate crime.

They didn't have hate crimes in 1985.

[Rob]

you know...call me hitler but i would MUCH rather execute one innocent person if it meant that 1000 guilty ones got fried in a TIMELY MANNER...even if that one person turned out to be me. the biggest problem with our criminal justice system is it has no teeth. people aren't worried or afraid of getting caught...its just an odds game to them and the penalty isnt all that bad. if people truly FEARED the torture and horrific death they deserve for such crimes, a lot of these crimes would not be committed in the first place. plus, it would save a lot of money (so obama and pelosi could steal it).

[macktrapper]

SW Cbus wrote:

There is a double digit percentage of people who confess to crimes they didn't commit, and have later been exonorated.
There are also a large number of cases where someone has been found guilty by a jury and later exonorated by DNA evidence.
It is also a lot costlier, 2x to 3x as much, to execute someone then it is to keep them in prison for life.
Ohio should save itself money and do away with the death penalty.

Wouldn't cost much at all if done correctly

[ALittleEducation Please]

Conservatives always want to post the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall. They also want to execute criminals. I just don't see where "Thou shalt not kill" makes any exceptions. Maybe when you read the bible you need a Conservative to sit next to you and explain away parts like that? "You see, son, it doesn't really mean nobody should kill. It just means that the right to kill is reserved for the state."

[macktrapper]

Rob wrote:

you know...call me hitler but i would MUCH rather execute one innocent person if it meant that 1000 guilty ones got fried in a TIMELY MANNER...even if that one person turned out to be me. the biggest problem with our criminal justice system is it has no teeth. people aren't worried or afraid of getting caught...its just an odds game to them and the penalty isnt all that bad. if people truly FEARED the torture and horrific death they deserve for such crimes, a lot of these crimes would not be committed in the first place. plus, it would save a lot of money (so obama and pelosi could steal it).

Know where you are coming from but gotta disagree Rob, can't stand the thought of you or anyone else dying for something they didn't do.
I would gladly execute the guilty personally though.

[Bob]

ALittleEducationPlease wrote:

Conservatives always want to post the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall. They also want to execute criminals. I just don't see where "Thou shalt not kill" makes any exceptions. Maybe when you read the bible you need a Conservative to sit next to you and explain away parts like that? "You see, son, it doesn't really mean nobody should kill. It just means that the right to kill is reserved for the state."

Is that what you say to your kids about third trimester abortion. It's wrong to put Timothy McVeigh to death but we can celebrate abortion rights, and implode a few skulls. We will justify it by doing some stem cell research.

[macktrapper]

ALittleEducationPlease wrote:

Conservatives always want to post the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall. They also want to execute criminals. I just don't see where "Thou shalt not kill" makes any exceptions. Maybe when you read the bible you need a Conservative to sit next to you and explain away parts like that? "You see, son, it doesn't really mean nobody should kill. It just means that the right to kill is reserved for the state."

You apparently don't understand the difference between "killing" which is the unjustified taking of innocent life, and "execution" which is the carring out of a lawful sentence of death. There is a wide difference between the two.
Plenty of God sanctioned executions in the Bible. Read it sometime yourself.

[harrysak]

24 years overdue, rot in hell

[Jim]

Fielding Melish wrote:

He DID have incompetent counsel. The non-jury trial giveaway could have been exchanged for no-death in sentencing.
So what? He didn't have to kill the guy. Who knows? Maybe his mark had a weapon or knew how to fight and a desperate struggle ensued.That would have been a little bit of mitigation that would have made a no-death deal at least possible.
Besides that;25 years for this to drag out is an embarrassment.
This is a "System"?

The article fails to mention that he cut his victim's chest cavity open, sat down and drank a beer and using his victim's open chest cavity as an ashtray leaving his butts and emplty beer cans inside him.

[Pelosi]

SW Cbus wrote:

There is a double digit percentage of people who confess to crimes they didn't commit, and have later been exonorated.
There are also a large number of cases where someone has been found guilty by a jury and later exonorated by DNA evidence.
It is also a lot costlier, 2x to 3x as much, to execute someone then it is to keep them in prison for life.
Ohio should save itself money and do away with the death penalty.

"It is also a lot costlier, 2x to 3x as much, to execute someone then it is to keep them in prison for life."

Not by a pc. of rope, or a bullet to the head, or letting the waste of space just starve to death! Oh, that's not humane enough for a killer is it??? What if it was your child??? I bet you'd think different!