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

81–90 of 233 posts

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#81

Post by joesmo »

csomar wrote: post #50

I live in a country with a terrible human rights record. Yet, since 1991, it never had a death penalty applied. [1] You might get sentenced to a death penalty (on extreme cases), but it's not applied. The law still legalise it but there is some pressure to remove it currently. I find the news that 1) a death penalty is about to take place in the U.S, 2) hastily and 3) with little evidence really shocking , disturbing…

The US is most certainly not at the forefront of defending human rights if by that you mean actual action to stop abuses rather than mere lip service. Our prison system is an atrocious human rights disaster. Our justice system is effectively non-existent and almost 100% based on forced plea bargains (this case being an unusual exception that actually went to trial). Guantanamo Bay. Abu Ghraib. And that's just in the last decade. If you look at reality, you'll see that the US is full of human rights abuses, almost all preventable. And as far as the prison system, well it's by far the worst in the world.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#82

Post by mrtron »

You can argue against the death penalty a thousands ways. It is statistically racist, it is against the Christian way which is supposedly important in America, there is little reason to kill someone when you can securely lock them away indefinitely.

I don't see how you can argue for the death penalty. Killing people doesn't help anyone. Who has lived a happy and healthy life as a result of a death row execution of someone with a life sentence?

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#83

Post by thrownaway2424 »

One of the most distasteful aspects of this case has been the way the Daily Oklahoman, the local newspaper, has been demanding the man's death every day, in effect reprinting the Attorney General's press releases as news and editorial columns. I point to "AG's office calls witnesses in Glossip innocence claim 'inherently suspect'" and "Glossip attorneys cross line with criticism of DA". The Daily Oklahoman is a journalistic embarrassment on every topic but in the case of Glossip it has really shone an unintentional light on bloodlust in the state.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#84

Post by splat »

I highly recommend anyone interested in this to read the article Criminal Law 2.0 by Alex Kozinski (a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals). He presents twelve fundamental tenants of the criminal justice system that are flawed and suggests some ways to fix them. (E.g., "Eyewitnesses are highly reliable" and "Long sentences deter crime.") If you haven't read anything by Kozinski, you should. It's very readable. Especially the conclusion.

http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/2015/06/Kozinski_Prefa...

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#85

Post by verbin217 »

mrtron wrote: post #82

You can argue against the death penalty a thousands ways. It is statistically racist, it is against the Christian way which is supposedly important in America, there is little reason to kill someone when you can securely lock them away indefinitely. I don't see how you can argue for the death penalty. Killing people doesn't help anyone. Who has lived a happy and healthy life as a result of a death row execution of so…

In my experience Christian's seem very supportive of the death penalty.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#86

Post by efuquen »

falsestprophet wrote: post #73

If Richard Glossip wasn't sentenced to death, he would likely have languished in prison as long as he lived. That would also be a horrible injustice. People see more motivated by orders of magnitude to get death penalty cases right relative to life incarceration cases. Counterintuitively, justice may be better served by abolishing life imprisonment and mandating the death penalty for cases where periods of imprisonme…

> Counterintuitively, justice may be better served by abolishing life imprisonment and mandating the death penalty for cases where periods of imprisonment would exceed 20 years or so.

I've seen several people already share this sentiment and it really confuses me. Because

1) It's made by people who have never, and come from a background where they most likely never would, have to seriously make such a choice. (If I'm wrong let me know).

2) I would venture if you really were faced with such a choice it would not be the automatic "kill me if I get more then 20 years" one that you flippantly imply you would make. I have a feeling when faced with the actual prospects of death vs imprisonment of 20 years or more, rather then on some hypothetical situation in an internet forum, you might decide differently.

3) Even if it was the case you were to decide death over long term imprisonment, what would give you, or the justice system, the right to decide that for anyone else facing that situation? I have a feeling most people would still choose life, even if faced with perpetual imprisonment, over death.

And finally lets just assume Richard Glossip was unjustly found guilty of this crime, I know nothing about this case so lets just assume. The problem isn't specifically with the sentence but the fact that he is in fact not guilty, but was deemed guilty by his peers. By killing him you eliminate any possibility of recourse, he already paid the ultimate price. At least with life imprisonment there is still a chance for having some just conclusion, even if it's late and inadequate to the penalty he suffered.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#87

Post by rdl »

> "Richard Glossip's only hope now is if the Supreme Court intervenes."

Couldn't the President of the United States, Governor of Oklahoma, or other federal judges below the level of the Supreme Court intervene, at least temporarily?

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#88

Post by JackFr »

Forget about the 4% innocent. Forget about racial bias and unreliable eyewitnesses. How about we stop executing everyone including the guilty ones.

But please, enough with the rest of the world is enlightened and America is basically gun-loving racist troglodytes. It's not true and it's not an argument which will change anyone's mind.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#89

Post by johnnyg »

lisa_henderson wrote: post #69
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 ha…

Yeah, I can't say that. I'm not sure Schöffe is a silver bullet solution but that a jury is "the best we've got" is unlikely. Valid point.
Post reply on HN