A botched execution using a disputed new drug combination left an Oklahoma inmate writhing and clenching his teeth on the gurney on Tuesday, leading prison officials to halt the proceedings before the inmate's eventual death from a heart attack.
Yeah, but the 96% percent that are guilty deserve to be tortured way more than this guy was. People here have talking about wanting to slowly wind out their intestines and all sorts of other scenarios. Those Okies are just pussies in how they treat their convicts.
Yeah, "aggravated sexual assault" and other forms of making terrible things as vague and remote as possible. I'm sure it brings all sorts of comfort to victims.
"Zipperfish" said If they just killed the perpetrators, it wouldn't be such an issue. The problem is when they kill someone not guilty of the crime.
Nowadays, especially considering how difficult in the first place it even is to catch rapists (sorry, "aggrevated sexual assailants") without DNA evidence, I find those who are found guilty should have significant evidence against them.
Those found not guilty before they are killed should receive significant amounts of compensation. If found non-guilty after, the family and estate should receive compensation.
"Public_Domain" said Yeah, "aggravated sexual assault" and other forms of making terrible things as vague and remote as possible. I'm sure it brings all sorts of comfort to victims.
Kill the perpetrators.
At what level would you have the death penalty kick in? Do you recall the case of the man on death row, convicted of rape by the victim's own testimony, who was released years later because DNA proved it wasn't him? Lots of he said she said in rape - you willing to kill people based on that?
"andyt" said At what level would you have the death penalty kick in? Do you recall the case of the man on death row, convicted of rape by the victim's own testimony, who was released years later because DNA proved it wasn't him? Lots of he said she said in rape - you willing to kill people based on that?
This is unlikely to happen nowadays; a man convicted on the girl's/woman's testimony alone sounds like a needle in a haystack scenario.
"andyt" said Yeah, "aggravated sexual assault" and other forms of making terrible things as vague and remote as possible. I'm sure it brings all sorts of comfort to victims.
Kill the perpetrators.
At what level would you have the death penalty kick in? Do you recall the case of the man on death row, convicted of rape by the victim's own testimony, who was released years later because DNA proved it wasn't him? Lots of he said she said in rape - you willing to kill people based on that? Cops make expertise and believe me, it's very easy and let you to know with 99% who was raper. I was learning how to do it, while I was studying in university.
Thank God you don't practice law here. Forensic science is very inexact. Even if semen is present all it can tell you is they had sex. Can't tell you if it was consensual or not. Sexual assault is one of the most fraught areas of investigation. Many rapes occur without signs of violence. I shudder for the criminal justice system in the Ukraine.
Whatever happened to the old firing squad?
I believe rapists should be pushed to the front of the line for the death penalty.
Make it swift, make it an extermination.
I also don't care "how", just that it happens.
Kill the perpetrators.
Whatever happened to the old firing squad?
Liberals.
If they just killed the perpetrators, it wouldn't be such an issue. The problem is when they kill someone not guilty of the crime.
Nowadays, especially considering how difficult in the first place it even is to catch rapists (sorry, "aggrevated sexual assailants") without DNA evidence, I find those who are found guilty should have significant evidence against them.
Those found not guilty before they are killed should receive significant amounts of compensation. If found non-guilty after, the family and estate should receive compensation.
Yeah, "aggravated sexual assault" and other forms of making terrible things as vague and remote as possible. I'm sure it brings all sorts of comfort to victims.
Kill the perpetrators.
At what level would you have the death penalty kick in? Do you recall the case of the man on death row, convicted of rape by the victim's own testimony, who was released years later because DNA proved it wasn't him? Lots of he said she said in rape - you willing to kill people based on that?
Why to change drug combination if previous was working good?
The companies that make the drugs refuse to provide them because they don't agree that the drugs should be used to kill people.
I wonder how happy they are now.
At what level would you have the death penalty kick in? Do you recall the case of the man on death row, convicted of rape by the victim's own testimony, who was released years later because DNA proved it wasn't him? Lots of he said she said in rape - you willing to kill people based on that?
Yeah, "aggravated sexual assault" and other forms of making terrible things as vague and remote as possible. I'm sure it brings all sorts of comfort to victims.
Kill the perpetrators.
At what level would you have the death penalty kick in? Do you recall the case of the man on death row, convicted of rape by the victim's own testimony, who was released years later because DNA proved it wasn't him? Lots of he said she said in rape - you willing to kill people based on that?
Cops make expertise and believe me, it's very easy and let you to know with 99% who was raper. I was learning how to do it, while I was studying in university.