Posted on 05/15/2009 2:58:43 PM PDT by JoeProBono
A man convicted of battering his girlfriend's 8-year-old son and stuffing the body in a freezer was put to death Thursday in Oklahoma, while a man in Alabama was executed for fatally stabbing a mother of six.
Donald Lee Gilson, 48, proclaimed his innocence in the death of Shane Coffman before he was injected in Oklahoma with a lethal combination of drugs.
"I'm an innocent man but ... I get to go to heaven and I'll see Shane tonight," he said in his final statement. He was pronounced dead at 6:19 p.m.
Gilson's parents, sister, a friend and a pastor witnessed the execution, and about a dozen members of the victim's family watched from behind a one-way glass.
He became the second person to be executed this year in Oklahoma.
In 1998, Gilson was convicted of first-degree murder in Shane's death in 1995. An autopsy showed fractures to the boy's skull, his collarbone, shoulder blades, ribs, legs and spine and a tooth missing from his jaw.
Court records indicate that four other children who lived with Gilson and girlfriend Bertha Jean Coffman in a mobile home in Cleveland County showed abuse, and two of the children were emaciated. One of the children told investigators that Gilson beat the boy with a board and then placed him in a bathtub as punishment for going to the bathroom on a rug.
GRRRRREAT news! Thanks for posting.
“Does spanking work?
“Have you ever seen a child touch a hot burner again?”
“Does Capital Punishment work?”
“Have you ever seen an executed killer murder again?”
Any state that does not have the basic understanding of true justice as to require the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime is no state for moral men.
Next!
I can vote for the death penalty (if on a jury) on testimony of two witnesses to the event. But, I wouldn’t vote for the death penalty on the basis of deductions and conclusions from evidence. In that case, it would be life in prison.
That guy looks like he’s trying to look like Jesus. An angrier, less merciful and forgiving Jesus....
I don’t know about that... dying is dying... :-)
So the body was stuffed into a freezer, by Mr. Gilson {spit} for what, so he could chill out?
Tell it to the real judge, pal.
Sadder almost than the incident itself will be there'll be some who believe him.
You must have missed the follow-up. Obama brought them both back to life, gave each one a car, paid their mortgages, and extended their healthcare benefits for life! What a guy!
There are no mistakes when one does ones duty to the best of ones ability—only useless 20/20 hindsight regrets if one turns out to be wrong that can only undermine the greatest justice system man has yet created—making the whole thing bait for Leftist subversion,corruption and eventual political exploitation...
As it is becoming now.
You said — If you vote for the death penalty based solely on evidence that,in your personal opinion,indicates guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—and the other jurors agree for the same reasons,the man must die even if he is actually innocent.
—
If it was the death penalty that was involved and it was not solid evidence, then there would be a “not guilty” verdict on my part. It would have to be real solid.
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
You said — There are no mistakes when one does ones duty to the best of ones ability—only useless 20/20 hindsight regrets if one turns out to be wrong that can only undermine the greatest justice system man has yet created—making the whole thing bait for Leftist subversion, corruption and eventual political exploitation...
—
The “best of my ability” would be to make sure that it was beyond any reasonable doubt, and “that” being for the death penalty. If not — then it would be “no go” for me...
And that’s the way it should be and why they have juries, so that people can do exactly that, as they think is proper on the jury.
For all interested in juries or maybe you might be on one soon... here’s something to *know* and be aware of...
Fully Informed Jury Association
http://www.fija.org/
Just don’t go telling the judges and lawyers that you’ve read it... they don’t like it...
Man, I would not want to be that unrepentant slug right now. I think I’ll play “Mercy Seat” on the jukebox for Mr. Gilson . . .
Killing an 8 year old with a hammer. How can anyone argue against the death penalty?
I've served on juries (was foreman on one really contentious one) and one goes on the evidence and the judge's instructions alone regardless of personal prejudices or “feelings.”
To do otherwise does injustice to the real victims of crime,the victims of crime.
Even Capital crime cases do not nor should not,stray from this course.
If the totally incompetent Judge Eto had actually instructed the dumass OJ jurors to disregard the prosecution in their deliberations,I would have accepted the not guilty verdict as stupid but just—as it was,the jurors biased and race-based jury nullification made the whole damn thing a ridiculous politically correct show trial on the level of statest regimes the world over both past and present.
If an obvious murderer confesses on the witness stand to the crime and his lawyer says he's nuts and the judge says to disregard the testimony,would you?
Being a good juror transcends the apparent truth in individual cases.
You said — If an obvious murderer confesses on the witness stand to the crime and his lawyer says he’s nuts and the judge says to disregard the testimony, would you?
—
I have heard that the police get “confessions” to crimes that they find out the person could have never done and doesn’t know the “facts” to the case.
If a person does confess to the crime and he’s “in court” being “tried” — right there I know *something is seriously wrong*... LOL...
So, I would immediately be suspect of that person’s so-called “confession”... because otherwise, he wouldn’t be on trial in the first place, if there was a legitimate confession. There would be no trial, the judge would go on to the penalty phase and there would be no jury.
—
But, aside from that “theoretical case” you presented, I know that the juror is the final and sole and last authority on the law, whether it is a just law, whether the person fits into that law and whether the law should be enforced as written. That’s what the founding fathers wanted for the jurors and they are the *last* and *final* and *authoritative* word on the law and the freedom of that accused individual.
I have no problem declaring a law to be unjust or that a person does not fit into the accused crime or the penalty of the law, on the basis of my authority in the juror’s box.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.