izmir escort izmir escort antalya escort porno jigolo izmir escort bursa escort instagram hesap kapatma backlink satışı havalandırma sistemleri porno izle instagram takipçi satın al saha betonu leadersmm.com facebook sayfa beğeni satın al alsancak escort eskişehir escort bayan Randy Lee Guzek - Oregon Death Row
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Randy Lee Guzek - Oregon Death Row

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Randy Lee Guzek - Oregon Death Row

    Facts of the Crime:

    In 1988, Randy Lee Guzek convicted of two counts of aggravated murder in the brutal 1987 slayings of Rod and Lois Houser in Terrebonne. His partners in crime, Mark Wilson and Donald Ross Cathay, received life sentences in exchange for testifying against him.

    Guzek was re-sentenced to death on June 17, 2010.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    June 17, 2010

    Murderer Guzek Gets Death - Again - But It's Not Over

    BEND, Ore. -- After only a few hours of deliberation, a Bend jury imposed the death penalty for a fourth time Thursday afternoon against convicted double-murderer Randy Lee Guzek for his role in the brutal murders of a Terrebonne couple, after three earlier decisions were overturned on appeal over the past 23 years.

    People were called back to the courtroom around 2 p.m., 5 1/2 hours after the jury got the case, following closing arguments and final jury instructions from a visiting Lane County judge.

    The jury decided Guzek deserves to die by lethal injection, rather than be given life in prison with the possibility of parole when he's 78.

    Guzek was convicted of two counts of aggravated murder in 1988 for killing Rod and Lois Houser at their home in Terrebonne.

    The 41-year-old Guzek was 18 when he and two other men shot and stabbed the Housers, then ransacked their house.

    His death sentence has been overturned three times since his conviction, on legal issues. A new Deschutes County Circuit Court jury has spent the past three weeks hearing prosecution testimony detailing the brutal crimes, and most recently from the defense, trying to paint a portrait of a troubled youth with an abusive father.

    Special prosecutor Josh Marqis told the jury in his closing statement Thursday, "We can hope that at least Rod Houser was surprised when he was shot 20-plus times. But Lois Houser knew she was going to die when she ran upstairs, running from that man there" - he said, pointing to Guzek - "although there was no escape."

    Eleven Houser family members or supporters were in the front row as the fourth trial in nearly a quarter-century came to an end.

    The jury was not swayed to spare Guzek's life by the tearful convict's apology for his crimes in court Wednesday, as he told the jury he now blames himself, not an abusive father or drugs, for what happened.

    "For the fourth time in 23 years, we've all had to relive the irresponsible and shameless behavior of my past," Guzek said. "I'm truly sorry to all of you for that."

    Guzek said he knew that whatever he said, "my words likely will be perceived as self-serving. The alternative to that, however, would be to say nothing at all, and I don't think that would be fair either."

    "I remain overwhelmed with guilt (and) shame," Guzek said. "I am truly sorry for all of the unnecessary pain I have caused. I'm truly sorry for not living my life, and conducting myself, in a manner so that my friends and family could defend me, but never have to."

    "I'm asking for forgiveness," he said. "I'm asking for peace. And I'm asking the healing process steadfastly work its magic within all of us. It is for these things I ask, and it is for these things I pray."

    "I blame me for my failures; I am responsible for all of them," he said.

    Guzek was 18 when he and two accomplices robbed the Housers, a couple he was familiar with because he briefly dated their niece. Guzek, under the influence of methamphetamine, ordered one of the accomplices to kill Rod Houser, who months earlier had told Guzek to stay away from the girl.

    Lois Houser was chased up the staircase and shot three times by Guzek, who then stole the wedding ring off her hand.

    Guzek was convicted the following year and sent to death row. The accomplices were spared a potential death sentence by agreeing to testify against Guzek, the alleged ringleader.

    Guzek's conviction has stood for 22 years, but the sentence produced a legal saga with three sequels, not including an appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court. It has reportedly cost the state more than $2 million.

    Marquis said in closing arguments Wednesday that the easy choice would be to stop the appeals and simply keep Guzek behind bars until he's an old man. But that, he said, wouldn't be just.

    Marquis, noting Guzek's criminal activity before the murders, said Guzek would be a strong candidate to reoffend, even at 78, and has not shown remorse for his actions.

    "Mercy, in order to be bestowed, has to be earned, and Mr. Guzek has not earned it," Marquis said.

    Defense attorney Rich Wolf told jurors that it was a "tragedy" for the Housers that the case dragged on for more than 20 years, but it has allowed them to have information jurors did not have in 1988, 1991 and 1997, such as Guzek's history of being a model inmate.

    As for Guzek's upbringing, Wolf challenged jurors to find a "more reprehensible, more heinous" father.

    "To suggest his father was not a factor is quite disingenuous," he said.

    Though relatives of the Housers want Guzek to join the other 33 inmates on Oregon's death row, Wolf told jurors the family has had to revisit the ordeal in four jury trials, and a death sentence would only renew the appeals process.

    "Let the punishment begin today," he said.

    In his rebuttal, Marquis told jurors that the "Houser family speaks for the Houser family."

    "Let's not talk about closure," he fumed. "There is no closure."


  3. #3
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Appealing for an end to the Randy Guzek saga

    Doug Houser and Janet S. Roberts, in all likelihood, have never met.

    But their conflicting sense of due -- and overdue -- process have brought them together before the Oregon Supreme Court to argue what constitutes reasonable delay in the shadow of Randy Guzek.

    Roberts is the court reporter charged with transcribing Guzek's fourth death penalty trial for the 1987 murders of Rod and Lois Houser in Terrebonne.

    That June trial in Deschutes County ended, like all the others, with a unanimous jury verdict that Guzek deserves to die for his crimes.

    The trial lasted 27 days. The transcript, Roberts estimates, will run 6,000 pages, and she has appealed to the court -- for the second time -- for a 90-day extension to complete it.

    Houser -- Rod's younger brother -- surely understands Roberts' dilemma, but he has stepped forward with his attorneys to oppose this latest extension in the "extraordinary delay in the State's efforts to bring defendant Randy Guzek to justice."

    Guzek was sentenced, once again, to death on June 17. His defense team -- now headed by Jeffrey Ellis -- cannot submit its brief in the automatic Supreme Court review of that sentence until the transcript of the trial is completed.

    And if the court grants Roberts' request, the transcript will not be ready until early May, almost 11 months after the verdict.

    As absurd as that sounds, this is not a unique problem for the Supreme Court. The Death Row appeals of Karl Anthony Terry -- convicted in 1995 of killing two brothers in a Milwaukie park with an 18-inch Japanese sword -- bogged down for almost four years as the court waited for an accurate transcript of his trial.

    Ten years ago, the Supreme Court moved to address these delays in the appeals' process. "We realized motions for extensions of time for administrative reasons, like preparing the transcript, were falling through the cracks," said former Justice Michael Gillette, who is now in private practice.

    "I agreed to take responsibility for all administrative motions in death-penalty cases. Efficiency arose out of paying attention."

    Doug Beloof, Houser's attorney, sees little efficiency in the legal system's response to Guzek. In the 271 months since Guzek was first sentenced to death, Beloof notes, 188 months -- 70 percent of the total -- "have been spent on appellate review of the death sentences."

    Once the transcript is completed, notes J. Kevin Hunt, one of Guzek's attorneys, each side -- first the defense, then the state -- is given another 180 days to file an opening brief.

    "Unless you have been intimately involved in the preparation of a capital appeal brief, you cannot apprehend the exhaustive nature of the process," Hunt notes. "I have worked solidly for a year on capital appeal briefs, giving up every weekend in addition to 16-plus hour weekday work days, only to file the brief with less than an hour to spare."

    The Supreme Court is loath to interfere and give the defendant grounds to argue that he had inadequate assistance of counsel.

    In the seemingly endless legal wrangling in this case, there has been one small measure of resolution:

    Martha Hicks, an assistant disciplinary counsel for the Oregon State Bar, has completed her investigation into an episode in which Richard L. Wolf, Guzek's lead attorney in the fourth death-penalty trial, approached the trial's presiding juror, Jennifer Wyllie, at a Costco in September.

    Wyllie reported the "uninvited contact" to Lane County Circuit Judge Jack Billings, the judge in Guzek IV, complaining Wolf quickly steered the conversation toward Guzek and the jury verdict. The Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct insist that a lawyer shall not communicate with a juror if such contact is contrary to the desire of the juror or "involves misrepresentation, coercion, duress or harassment."

    Hicks informed Billings she does "not have probable cause to believe that Mr. Wolf committed misconduct" in the encounter with Wyllie:

    "The absence of any corroboration for the juror's version of events, coupled with the fact that we would ultimately have to prove it by clear and convincing evidence leads me to the conclusion that we would not be able to establish that Mr. Wolf violated the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct."

    Hunt said he considers this "exoneration" of Wolf.

    Not surprisingly, Josh Marquis, the Clatsop County DA who prosecuted Guzek IV, had a slightly different view. He argues that the bar should have also focused on the Uniform Trial Court Rules, which mandate that parties to a trial "must not initiate contact with any juror concerning any case which that juror was sworn to try."

    "I was under the impression," Marquis said, "that as trial lawyers we were not to contact jurors, period. I'm going to follow what I believe to be the Uniform Trial Court Rules. I don't think jurors should feel that they have to account for their verdicts."

    On Feb. 15, Wolf filed a motion withdrawing from further representation of Guzek. Ellis, the director of the Oregon Capital Resource Center, has been appointed the lead counsel in the appeal to the Supreme Court.

    Only when the transcript is completed and the briefs filed will the court review Guzek's latest death sentence and finally bring us to the point of post-conviction relief.

    Which, as Doug Houser surely knows, is when the pace of death-penalty cases really slows down.


  4. #4
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    A new year for Randy Guzek and the same old judicial farce

    By Steve Duin
    The Oregonian

    Let me tell you how bad it is.

    More than 42 months ago, Randy Guzek was once again convicted of the 1987 murders of Rod and Lois Houser, and sentenced to death.

    For the fourth time.

    Eight months later, the court reporter asked for more time to complete the 6,000-page transcript from the contentious Deschutes County trial. (The trial was recorded because our forlorn court system can no longer afford to have living, breathing transcribers in the room.)

    As I noted in a February 2011 column, Guzek's defense team could not submit its appellant's brief to jumpstart the automatic Oregon Supreme Court review of that death sentence until the transcript was complete.

    Almost three years later -- surprise, surprise -- we're still waiting.

    How ridiculous is the timeless quest for justice in the Guzek case?

    As another year ends, the presiding judge in Marion County is polling jurors from Guzek IV -- jurors who were unanimous in their belief that Guzek deserves to die -- to see if they remember a quick nod by a witness during trial.

    A nod. A bob. The latest gimmick to hold this case hostage.

    There is absolutely no mention, mind you, of that "non-verbal affirmative response" in the court record.

    None of the three defense attorneys rose to make note of it. Neither of the prosecutors saw it.

    And the judge -- Jack Billings, now retired -- insists it never happened. The witness, Mark Wilson, "was sitting right next to me, and I was watching him the entire time he was on the stand," Billings says in an affidavit.

    "(Wilson) certainly did not say anything, and if he had nodded in some perceptible way that would have indicated acknowledgement, I would have commented."

    But last spring, Richard Wolf, the lead defense counsel, had a revelation.

    While reviewing the transcript of Wilson's testimony, Wolf suddenly remembered that, yes, "Mr. Wilson acknowledged the prosecutor's question in the affirmative."

    (For the record, prosecutor Josh Marquis asked Wilson -- who was convicted of aggravated murder in the case and sentenced to 40 years in prison -- if the basis of his 1988 testimony against Guzek was a requirement that he "testify truthfully.")

    Never mind that Wolf never mentioned that at trial, leaping to his feet to say something like, "Let the record reflect the witness just wagged his head like a wet and happy dog."

    Never mind that, as Tim Sylvester at the Department of Justice notes, when Wolf rose to object at the time, "all Mr. Wolf asked the trial court to do was to strike the prosecutor's question; he did not assert that the witness had answered the question and then ask to have the answer stricken."

    Never mind that after Billings denied Wolf's motions and brought the jury back, Marquis did not re-ask the question.

    And never mind that the Supreme Court denied Guzek's motion to "supplement" the court transcript last June.

    Wolf still swears he saw Wilson nod. The defense team, now led by Jeffrey Ellis, begged the Supreme Court to reconsider.

    And that was more than enough for Justice Martha Walters. According to her order, Wolf doesn't need to prove that Wilson nodded; the Department of Justice must prove Wilson didn't, or the Supremes will grant the defense motion ...

    And alter -- "supplement" is far too polite a word -- the transcript.

    So it is that Marion Circuit Judge Jamese Rhoades is polling jurors on what they remember about an arcane moment of a 2010 trial.

    So it is that all who knew and loved Rod and Lois Houser watch this charade of justice lurch into 2014.

    "What they're doing is really alarming," Marquis says. "You can't go back and tinker with the record. There's never been a hearing like this. The precedent is terrifying."

    As Sylvester argues in his motion to reject this nonsense, nothing in statute "allows a party to supplement the record on appeal with additional information that the party neglected to put on the record during the proceedings but wants to add after the fact."

    Guzek's motion, Sylvester continues, "is based solely on a self-serving assertion of fact that is not corroborated by anything in this record and that the state does not concede is true."

    If you're curious about why the defense cares about Wilson's imperceptible nod, Wolf made that clear in the immediate objection, in which he asked Billings to declare a mistrial. The law, Wolf said, "prohibits vouching for the witness by suggesting that the testimony that they're to give is truthful testimony."

    But let's get real. If it wasn't this objection or delaying tactic by the Guzek defense team, it would be something else.

    Anything to keep Guzek fat and happy in the Fantasyland that is Oregon's "Death Row."

    Anything to delay the appeals process of a punishment that was first imposed on Guzek more than 25 years ago.

    Guzek's lawyers are doing what they're paid to do, of course. As Marquis says, "You shoot 100 arrows into the air, and one or two will find purchase."

    What's appalling is that Oregon's Supreme Court is cheering them on.

    Let me tell you how bad it is:

    Forty-two months after Guzek was, for the fourth time, sentenced to death, his defense team is still not on the clock to file the brief that would begin the appeals process.

    And 25 years after Guzek was first convicted for the murders of Rod and Lois Houser, the Houser family is neither a single inch or a single hour closer to seeing justice served.

    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  5. #5
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Randy Guzek, sentenced to death 4 times for murdering Oregon couple, loses latest appeal

    A convicted murderer sentenced to death four times for the killing of a Deschutes County couple in the 1980s has been denied a fifth trial by the Oregon Supreme Court.

    In a ruling released Friday, the supreme court upheld the death sentence of 46-year-old Randy Lee Guzek. He participated in the killings of Rod and Lois Houser, 51 and 49, respectively, in their Terrebonne home in 1987. He was convicted of aggravated murder and given the death penalty a year later.

    Guzek was 18 when he and two other men shot and stabbed the couple. The other two men involved, Mark Wilson and Donald Cathey, received life sentences after testifying against Guzek.

    Guzek returned to Deschutes County Circuit Court in 1991, 1997 and 2010 after his death sentence was overturned each time by the Oregon Supreme Court. He was again convicted by Deschutes County jurors in each case.

    Guzek's defense attorneys filed a brief in March with the Oregon Supreme Court requesting that it overturn their client's death sentence because he was forced to wear a stun belt during his fourth sentencing trial and because, they claimed, the trial court gave improper instructions to the jury regarding Guzek's statements in court before sentencing.

    Guzek's attorneys argued that the belt, sometimes worn by criminal defendants in court hampered Guzek's ability to concentrate, assist his attorneys and affected his demeanor because it can deliver an electric shock to the wearer.

    The supreme court disagreed with that argument, as well as the one about instructions given regarding Guzek's allocution.

    The supreme court noted in its ruling that safety concerns permitted Guzek to be ordered to wear the shock belt while in court, that it did not violate his constitutional rights and that Guzek had been required to wear a shock belt during past re-sentencing trials and did not object.

    Guzek is one of 36 people on death row in Oregon. The state has not executed anyone since 1997.


  6. #6
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    In today's orders, the United States Supreme Court declined to review Guzek's petition for certiorari.

    Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Oregon
    Case Nos.: (SC58677)
    Decision Date: July 5, 2016


  7. #7
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Forever shackled to a dark, dark night

    As soon as Mark Wilson settled, shackled, into his seat, Michael Wu reminded the inmate why he had been summoned Tuesday to the visitors' center at the Oregon State Correctional Institution.

    This is not a parole hearing, the head of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision said. The board is seeking testimony only on whether Wilson, convicted of aggravated and felony murder in 1988, is yet "capable of rehabilitation."

    The board typically spends 30 days on those deliberations, Wu added:

    "It might take a little bit more time in your case."

    Wilson was 18 on the summer night in 1987 when he arrived, armed with a .22 Ruger, at the Terrebonne home of Rod and Lois Houser.

    He was keeping bad company: Randy Guzek and Donald Ross Cathey. Guzek was the sadistic ringleader of that crew, but Wilson emptied the 22-bullet banana clip into Rod Houser at Guzek's command.

    His testimony helped secure the death penalty for Guzek, who executed Lois at the door of an upstairs closet. Wilson - who felt so appreciated by prosecutor Ron Brown that he sent him a Christmas card in 1988 - settled for a plea bargain: consecutive life sentences. Forty years before a whiff of parole.

    By all accounts, Wilson has done exceptional things with the rest of his life. He nursed 23 terminally ill inmates through hospice. Raised money for The Dougy Center and crime victims. Stayed clear of drugs. Joined Craig Plunkett in teaching a prison class, "Empathy, Forgiveness and Reconciliation."

    "Anyone who has any interaction with him has figured out that he gets it," says Plunkett, who was inspired to start the prison project after his son, Eric, was murdered at Gallaudet University:

    "He's rehabilitated. The victims don't want to admit he's rehabilitated. They're still hurting. And I'd be doing the exact same thing if I hadn't forgiven."

    Since I first spoke to Wilson at Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution in 2005, he has been consistent: honest, chastened, reflective, and determined to somehow make amends for the havoc he unleashed.

    Yet there's so much to forgive.

    "The damage you've done to my family is irreparable," Susan Shirley, the Housers' daughter, told him. "If this crime does not deserve a life sentence, what crime does?"

    As the Oregon Supreme Court has made clear, the parole board is required to focus on "the personal characteristics of the prisoner," not his crime, as it ponders rehabilitation. The court has also reduced the minimum time murderers must serve before they are eligible for parole

    On Tuesday, Jason Thompson, Wilson's attorney, offered eight witnesses, other than family members, who lauded his transformation in prison. "He is not who he was," says Judith Steele, a former prison chaplain. "None of us are."

    Clatsop County District Attorney Josh Marquis and those opposing early release for Wilson countered with his contentious 2010 testimony at Guzek IV.

    Wilson did not testify in Guzek's 1991 and 1997 retrials, but he commandeered the stand in Bend at the killer's fourth death-penalty trial.

    In a two-hour showdown with Marquis, the lead prosecutor, Wilson insisted he and Guzek were equally guilty.

    "You all have tried to characterize him as ring-leader and shot-caller," Wilson said. "In 1988, that worked for me. Because I'm a follower, going along for the ride, I'm not as guilty or responsible for those acts as I really was. But I'm not going to let you do that (now). He's no more guilty than I am."

    Says Marquis, "He was so angry that he planned to ruin the case against the guy who led him to perdition."

    But Wilson's conduct is best understood in the context of a 2009 murder-review hearing.

    Wilson was fiercely disappointed when that board ruled him incapable of rehabilitation. He filed bar complaints against Marquis and Brown for pushing the board toward that conclusion, then lashed out at Guzek IV.

    Rather than be faulted for taking too little responsibility, Wilson decided, he'd take too much.

    Asked again to describe the murders seven years later, Wilson spoke in whispers. He doesn't want to circle back to the dark house in Terrebonne. He doesn't want to be forever shackled to what he remembers about that night, what he felt, whether Guzek had to step aside before Wilson first pulled the trigger.

    That doesn't pass muster with Doug Houser, Rod's younger brother. "Mark Wilson should man up and serve his time," Houser said. "A minimum sentence means exactly what it says, 40 years not 29."

    Nor did it seem to impress Wu and the board, which was far more focused on Wilson's crime than the 29 years he has spent making amends.

    "You're defined by the one instance you did something wrong," Plunkett says. "But we change. We have to change. If Mark is denied, he's still doing to do positive things. If he's paroled, he'll do positive things on the outside."

    And, no, Mark Wilson doesn't pretend that will ever be enough.

    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  8. #8
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    A second childhood for a cold-blooded killer?: Steve Duin

    By Steve Duin

    Since murdering Rod and Lois Houser in 1987, Randy Guzek apparently has had one hell of a time finding a decent lawyer.

    It took him 32 years to find attorneys willing to argue he should have been tried as a child, not an adult.

    Guzeks new legal champions are Jeffrey Ellis and Karen Steele. Hoping to free him from Oregons Death Row, they first filed a court document listing the deficiencies of his previous legal counsel.

    It runs 1,856 pages.

    Guzek's former defense attorneys, were told, screwed up time and again.

    They failed to counter allegations that Guzek sexually abused his younger sister, Tammy. They botched their cross-examination of Lynn Fredrickson, the lead detective in the case, and failed to raise objections to jury instructions.

    Heck, its even argued his original trial attorneys erred in refusing to allow Mr. Guzek to testify in his own defense.

    All told, Ellis and Steele post 284 claims of inadequate assistance of counsel in the four death-penalty trials. In the quest for post-conviction relief, they toss the full bowl of legal linguine at the wall, knowing only one strand need stick.

    If it does, Guzek one of the smarter and most calculating sadists on Death Row will be granted a new trial, one in which he is no longer eligible for the death penalty.

    What the defense lawyers are doing, on the taxpayers dime, is shooting the moon, says Josh Marquis, who three times prosecuted Guzek for those 1987 murders.

    They make 284 claims. If just one of them finds its mark, their guy has the potential of walking out of prison.

    The post-conviction relief festivities continued last week in the Marion County courtroom of Circuit Judge Thomas Hart.

    Steele and Ellis asked, in a 192-page brief, for an evidentiary hearing on their belief that the death penalty is unfairly applied to late adolescents.

    In 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Roper vs. Simmons that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments exempt anyone under the age of 18 from the death penalty.

    Guzek was 30 days past his 18th birthday when he and Mark Wilson arrived at the Housers door in Terrebonne, armed with a .22 caliber rifle and a .32-caliber pistol.

    But Steele and Ellis asked Hart to ponder testimony from a half-dozen esteemed psychologists. They contend Roper established that juvenile offenders are (a) more vulnerable to peer pressure; and (b) have a lack of maturity that results in impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions.

    They further argue that because the brains development continues well into ones early 20s, Guzek shouldnt bear full responsibility for the impetuousness he brought to the bloodbath.

    Their expert witnesses included Erin Bigler, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Brigham Young; Ruben Gur, a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School; and Laurence Steinberg, a Temple University professor billed as one of the worlds leading experts on adolescence.

    They were a relaxed, collegial group, sitting comfortably together in the courtroom for the three-day hearing.

    They were in their wheelhouse answering questions about myelination and pruning in the human brain. And, of course, they were well-paid. Bigler said he was billing $275 an hour, and estimated his three-day Salem sojourn would cost Oregon taxpayers a minimum of $7,000.

    Gur noted Tuesday that the college campus is quite the showcase for brain development: These undergraduates come to us at age 18, and theyre really not fully baked.

    But sitting a few feet from the 50-year-old Guzek, Gur also conceded he has never examined the guy and knew nothing about his crimes.

    He couldnt know, in other words, that Guzek was one of the alpha males at Redmond High. He applied the peer pressure. He aced most of his classes, notching a 3.9 GPA his junior year. He was sufficiently inventive to join the local Jehovahs Witnesses congregation so the could burglarize the members homes when they were on vacation.

    Its difficult to imagine why anyone, after all these years, would offer Guzek the sanctuary of prolonged adolescence.

    But thats the state of crime and punishment in Oregon these days. The Legislature moved deliberately to not only limit death penalty cases in the future, but sabotage death penalty cases from the past.

    Randy Guzek and his lawyers are so damn grateful.

    "I realize this may sound harsh, but as a father and former lawman, I really don't care if it's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions."
    - Oklahoma Rep. Mike Christian

    "There are some people who just do not deserve to live,"
    - Rev. Richard Hawke

    "Men have called me mad; but the question is not yet settled, whether madness is or is not the loftiest intelligence"
    - Edgar Allan Poe

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts