The Case of Richard Glossip
pg.posthaven.com
The Case of Richard Glossip
1–10 of 233 posts
Re: The Case of Richard Glossip
#2Very well written. I'm glad to see pg writing about things other than startups again.
Re: The Case of Richard Glossip
#3This is important, the "greatest country in the world" has to do better with things like this.
As pg very well says, you cannot have human lives depend on other human's lack of rigor, stupidity and incompetence
Re: The Case of Richard Glossip
#4I agree, you should not have death penalty in US, specially without any physical evidence. This is a broken system and it should be fixed!
Re: The Case of Richard Glossip
#5"Might Sneed have lied to save his own skin? Reasonable doubt? Nothing is more likely."
And nothing more need be said. I don't understand how it seems impossible to force into people's heads the two notions that the burden of guilt lay with the prosecution and that guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Re: The Case of Richard Glossip
#6I upvoted this mainly because I think it's healthy that people consider the ethics by which they and their fellow citizens live. But generally speaking, this is a stupid reason not to kill someone.
The DA basically told this guy point-blank that if you don't want to die, take this deal. If you do want to die, don't take the deal.
He chose not to take the deal.
Is there a chance that "good sense" could have prevailed, and that by some fluke, some part of the system wouldn't work, and so he would be saved from the death penalty? Maybe. But if he had taken the deal, he would definitely not have died.
This guy chose to play russian roulette with a six-shooter with five bullets in it and lost. And this is the reason we shouldn't kill people? Because a guy who can't do the basic math of "which choice is more likely to end in my death" chose poorly?
No. The guy should have taken the deal. Much like the rest of the people on the planet who choose to take huge risks with their life, he's going to lose out on this bet. And that has nothing to do with why we should stop the state from killing people.
Our system of justice is based on laws and rules. They can't be broken arbitrarily, which is why innocent people are put to death. Not because we're mean. Not because we're stupid. We make the rules, and we have to enforce them. In this case, one of our rules is, if you do X, you die.
So, if you don't believe in killing innocent people, by all means, get rid of that rule. But don't tell me we should get rid of the rule because the rules weren't perfect.
Re: The Case of Richard Glossip
#7I upvoted this mainly because I think it's healthy that people consider the ethics by which they and their fellow citizens live. But generally speaking, this is a stupid reason not to kill someone. The DA basically told this guy point-blank that if you don't want to die, take this deal. If you do want to die, don't take the deal. He chose not to take the deal. Is there a chance that "good sense" could have prevailed,…
If he's innocent, he chose to not go to jail for life for a crime he didn't commit. People shouldn't have to accept unjust punishment to avoid other people's ignorance/laziness/incompetence/half-assedness.
Re: The Case of Richard Glossip
#8I upvoted this mainly because I think it's healthy that people consider the ethics by which they and their fellow citizens live. But generally speaking, this is a stupid reason not to kill someone. The DA basically told this guy point-blank that if you don't want to die, take this deal. If you do want to die, don't take the deal. He chose not to take the deal. Is there a chance that "good sense" could have prevailed,…
1. That is blaming the victim.
2. Telling someone that I intend to kill them, means that is would be stupid to not kill them?
Re: The Case of Richard Glossip
#9It's increasingly seems that the powers of prosecutors are deployed in arbitrary and unjust ways: either overreaching (as in the case of Aaron Swartz or Xiaoxing Xi) or non-prosecution of police brutality or corporate crime (just changing now that the statute of limitations run out on those responsible for the 2008 financial crisis)
It's not clear what can be done about it, other than occasionally writing a check to the ACLU to help limit the damage. Any ideas?
Re: The Case of Richard Glossip
#10Seems like the real issue is that Oklahoma is not giving the guy a fair trial. While the finality of the death penalty makes it (or at least makes it seem) worse, it would/could be just as unfair to throw the guy in jail for life without giving him his due process.