Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Case of Richard Glossip

pg.posthaven.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 233 posts

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#61

Post by guelo »

cbsmith wrote: post #14
msabalau wrote: 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.

Even if the awful cases are a tiny percentage of all cases (which I don't believe is the case considering how common plea bargain extortion is), it is still a huge problem that is quickly eroding confidence in the justice system.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#62

Post by jamez1 »

plaguuuuuu wrote: post #47
lazyant wrote: post #32

Appalled that people are killed legally based only on a criminal's word. Also appalled that we still have the death penalty in some countries, these are pretty much all backwards countries with the outliers of US and Japan; it's a litmus test for humans rights imho.

Define backwards? Singapore has the death penalty. Taiwan has the death penalty. Singapore is probably the most advanced economy in the world. one of Taiwan's main exports is computer engineering R&D for most of the hardware in your PC (as the hardware itself is now manufactured and assembled in China) Taiwan has nationalised health care - score 1 for Taiwan over the US. I consider any country implementing the death…

Technology/Economy has nothing to do with how backwards/progressive a country is.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#63

Post by barney54 »

I support the death penalty, but I believe all executions should be carried out Ned Stark style. As in, if you are the Governor, and can commute the sentence, then you should be there and actually carry out the execution. If you can save a person's life, you owe it to them and society to bear the responsibility of not commuting the sentence and see what death looks like.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#64

Post by pdabbadabba »

gizmo wrote: post #24

I 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 w…

> I 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.

What do you mean by "in combination with," here? If you mean that the death penalty is used to convince people to plead guilty, I'm with you. But if you're saying that a large number of people who are sentenced to death were pressured into pleading guilty, then I am skeptical, since it is unclear what the defendant is receiving in exchange for the plea. (Usually it is a lighter sentence...)

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#66

Post by peterwwillis »

cortesoft wrote: post #48
peterwwillis wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That wasn't the choice given. It was "Accept this deal for life in prison" or "Have faith that your innocence will prevail in the court of law and you will be exonerated." If I, an innocent man, was given that choice... I would probably try it out in court. I would assume my innocence would prevent the court from convicting me.

This is possibly the most naive thing i've read on the internet.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#67

Post by mistermann »

x0x0 wrote: post #33
savanaly wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Kamala Harris beat Steve Cooley in the 2010 CA attorney general election by 74k votes. That's a relatively direct impact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Attorney_General_el...

Did Kamala Harris turn out to be any better?

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#68

Post by zatkin »

If you think about it, death vs life in prison is pretty imbalanced. On one hand, you can either die immediately and escape from it all (that being the case), while on the other hand you're stuck in a cell for the rest of your life, living with your thoughts, away from the rest of society. Personally, if I had to choose, I would choose death, since it's quick and easy, and I won't have to suffer through my own thoughts on a day to day basis.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#69

Post by lisa_henderson »

johnnyg wrote: post #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…

About this:

"Though a jury is a good idea and the best we've got, the process they run through seems ripe for reform."

How do you justify the statement that a jury is the best idea that we have? Germany has the concept of Schöffe, and some believe this offers results that stick closer to the law than the jury system:

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Schoffe

While any government of mortal human flesh must inevitably have some flaws, the jury system seems especially bad at overcoming popular prejudice. In the USA, "a jury of one's peers" has often meant a mostly white (or all white) jury judging a black person, a circumstance that has given the USA many hundreds of famous miscarriages of justice.

The system that grew out of English Common Law, and which dominates England, Canada, the USA, Australia and New Zealand, is not the only system known to liberal Western societies. The English system is unique in the authority it gives to juries. Most of the Continental judicial systems either lack juries or have juries whose goal is constrained relative to the English system.

A review of the legal traditions in liberal Western nations reveals a lot of good ideas, many of which are probably superior to the jury system.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#70

Post by mistermann »

msabalau wrote: 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…

I honestly think the only thing that could ever change it is if some vigilante with nothing to lose started bringing the same flavor of extreme justice to the doorsteps of the people passing it out - fear of potential ramifications will very quickly change behavior.
Post reply on HN