Live data from Hacker News

The Case of Richard Glossip

pg.posthaven.com

11–20 of 233 posts

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#11

I 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,…

So, if I'm innocent, I should take a plea bargain (which, let's not forget, involves me standing up before God and everyone and saying, "yes, I did it," so that I can spend the rest of my life in a maximum security penitentiary, so that I can avoid being put to death? Not sure I agree with your logic there.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#13
post #10

Seems 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.

I agree with this sentiment, would the death penalty be fine with people assuming it can be proven that somebody is 100% guilty?

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#14
post #9

It'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…

Keep in mind that you're survey of examples is likely biased by what makes a good story... and journalists have become very good at figuring out which cases will make a good story.

It's a problem that there is enough material to keep the stories coming, but let's not conclude that the stories we read about represent the bulk of the justice system's operations.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#15
RE: How people are and the death penalty

The other day I was driving down the road and thinking about how people are.

It was 33 years coming but here's what hit me: people do what they want, even in the face of devastating consequences.

See that long line outside any burger joint? See the stats on the amount of hard drugs guaranteed to destroy your world we consume? See that person cheating? See that DA wanting a win?

If you want a burger, a high, an orgasm or a conviction, you generally will get it at some price that's ultimately...above market.

How much more prone to excess is someone in the heat of a moment? How unlike the event does its moment by moment reconstruction during a trial appear? The mismatch has always struck me as unjust. As people judging an event whose experience they haven't had and haven't attempted to recreate. Though a jury is a good idea and the best we've got, the process they run through seems ripe for reform.

An eye for an eye has its place. If you walk into a school, start shooting and are captured alive - I think you just forfeited any claim on life or potential rehabilitation.

Any shade of grey zooming out from that seems too hard for any government system to decide well. I hear people say things in passing like "he only got 20 years". 20 years is a huge and devastating amount of time, as is one year. As we've ramped up the time on these sentences and made it an all or nothing proposition. Unfortunately, I don't think 20 years will do it if 1 year hasn't and I don't think death will do it if 20 years hasn't.

Regarding Richard Glossip. I don't know him or his case. I don't know the victim and while they won't return, there's a debt owed that I don't know how to pay. I want Richard Glossip to live. I don't think taking another life will pay the debt of the first. What I want most of all is for someone to tell me how to pay that debt.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#16

I 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,…

You can opine in harsh language about whether or not this guy made the "smart" choice all you want, but why is our "justice" system forcing this man to make such an unfair choice in the first place?

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#17
post #9

It'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…

Who do you think sets policy? DAs are elected. US attorneys are appointed by the president. Vote.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#18

I 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,…

So, if I'm innocent, I should take a plea bargain (which, let's not forget, involves me standing up before God and everyone and saying, "yes, I did it," so that I can spend the rest of my life in a maximum security penitentiary, so that I can avoid being put to death? Not sure I agree with your logic there.

Here's a diagram of the logic.

  Do you want to die?
  
    Y ->
         Reject offer. ->
                          Death penalty.
    N ->
         Accept offer. ->
                          Life in prison.

I don't know how I could simplify this further.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#19

I 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,…

Your writing presumes Glossip killed Van Treese. Why do you believe this to be true?
Post reply on HN