In general, human testimony is one of the weakest forms of evidence we have. People, even when they don't have incentive to lie, have horrible memories! It should barely be admissible, let alone for first degree murder, especially in cases like this where the witness is being bribed for his testimony.
The Case of Richard Glossip
21–30 of 233 posts
Re: The Case of Richard Glossip
#22Seems 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.
There will always be mistakes and wrongful processes in any kind of system, the difference between death penalty and life sentence is the finality of the former: there is also some very small chance that you can be proven innocent a few years down the road (we're all taking about extremes here).
Re: The Case of Richard Glossip
#23It'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.
Agreed. "Fixing criminal justice," is a vague if noble goal. I think it's pretty clear at this point however that the standard of evidence is too low. And out of the humility wrought by the awareness of our own fallibility, perhaps we should stray from punishments as final as death.
Re: The Case of Richard Glossip
#24I encourage everybody to read up on the horrors of how the death penalty functions in practice. Especially in combination with the plea-bargain system, that effectively robs > 95% of suspects from their constitutional right to a fair trial.
Finally -- and I know this is only a minor point in comparison -- it's worth noting that pg doesn't have anything to gain by writing this, and people who stick their neck out by writing about political issues inevitably get shouted at. Soon enough publishing anything stops being worth the aggravation. So credit goes to pg for standing up and speaking out, when it's all too easy to be silent.
Re: The Case of Richard Glossip
#25It'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.
I think he meant (and I'm also curious) what we could individually do that would have a tangible difference. Not what could a large swathe of people in the US do collectively, which is a different question.
Re: The Case of Richard Glossip
#26The crazy thing is that although salient, of all the ways the US government kills innocent people, the death penalty probably has one of the lowest total body counts.
At least in comparison with wars of aggression, foreign coups, the war on drugs, subsidizing cars, subsidizing fossil fuels, subsidizing tobacco, weak pharma regulation, promoting antibiotics in food, cop shootings, fast food subsidies (via corn), not implementing cap & trade to combat climate change, privatized health insurance, trade embargoes, promoting harmful nutrition guidelines, lack of food safety standards/inspection, lack of any required safety testing for new chemicals, etc.
Re: The Case of Richard Glossip
#27I 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,…
Omg you are proposing such a hugely distorted justice system.
The punishment for making a bad decision on a deal presented to you should not be death. If your crime deserves the maximum sentence, and you are in subway helpful to the criminal justice system, then maybe you deserve a pass. However, if you didn't commit the crime, or if there is reasonable doubt as to whether you did, I don't care if you mooned the DA when they offered a plea bargain: you shouldn't get killed.
That's not arbitrary justice. That's just justice. You can't justify punishing innocent people.
Now, the nice thing about other punishments is, in the case where justice if misapplied, you can try to make up for it later. With the death penalty, that option isn't available to you, which is one of many reasons people question whether it at all makes sense.
Re: The Case of Richard Glossip
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Life isn't just about cold pragmatism. Sometimes you have to stand up for you believe is right, especially when the odds aren't in your favor.
Re: The Case of Richard Glossip
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Why would anyone ask an innocent person if he wants to die? Your premise is faulty.
Re: The Case of Richard Glossip
#30One thing to consider is that this case (and the 4%) figure refer to those who've been sentenced to death, where the standards for prosecution and sentencing are the absolute highest. It would only be natural to suspect that this figure is even greater the less the sentence/crime.
Until we carefully scrutinize the incentives facing the judicial system as a whole (and see how unbalanced it is), this is bound to be the norm.