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

91–100 of 233 posts

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#91

Post by tsotha »

mistermann wrote: post #70
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.

That would cause change, but in the opposite direction. People would rally around judges and prosecutors and you'd see fewer people questioning the status quo. It would be a disaster.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#92

Post by tsotha »

jamez1 wrote: post #62
plaguuuuuu wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not everyone agrees on what constitutes progress.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#93

Post by webXL »

joshuaheard wrote: post #90

Government is too incompetent to have the power to take your life.

I'm sympathetic to that argument, but the logical next step is to say that they're also too incompetent to protect your life, and then it's the wild-west.

I believe in extreme circumstances, society should reserve the right to "not turn the other cheek". Nothing is black and white. The government is not completely incompetent, and not all cases have reasonable doubt. But cases like this, no way. Define some clear-cut parameters and apply it to every state uniformly.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#94

Post by tsotha »

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…

Your country sounds like California. We have almost 750 inmates on death row and I'll be surprised if a single one gets executed.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#95

Post by tsotha »

philwelch wrote: post #51
Alex3917 wrote: post #26

The 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 i…

It seems almost pointless to even have a formal death penalty when law enforcement officers are given effective blanket immunity against homicide charges.

That's not true. They officer who shot Walter Scott has been charged with murder.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#96

Post by blfr »

If we can't entrust the justice system with the death penalty, how can we entrust it with a lifetime imprisonment? If we eliminate lifetime imprisonment, can we really trust them with 35 year sentences? Twenty years?

There is no punishment that fits both the guilty and the innocent. There is no compromise.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#97

Post by ekianjo »

> That's why we can't have the death penalty in the US. I don't know exactly when it's permissible to kill someone. But I know for sure the Oklahoma judicial system should not be allowed to. If they have that power, all it takes is a half-assed police investigation plus a prosecutor playing hardball with plea bargains, and innocent people die.

Mmm? So, because the system is not perfect, we should remove death penalty altogether? Is that seriously the point PG is making here?

IRL there is no perfect system whatsoever. Yet we learn how to live with risk and deficiencies and hopefully improve things as we move forward to make less mistakes. Whether that applies to the US Judicial system, I don't know, but that's not a good reason to remove the death row altogether. There are a number of criminals who are well known to have no empathy and can kill without remorse or emotion, and I don't see how this kind of individuals can be rehabilitated in any way within society. On top of that, every individual who is conscious about their actions should also face responsibility - that's part of the "social contract" on which we base our actions every single day. There should be strong consequences for murder and certainly Death Row has its place as well.

But yeah, there is no discussion that we should have due process to make sure ONLY convicted criminals (with proper evidence) go to Death Row.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#98

Post by tsotha »

rdl wrote: post #87

> "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?

The governor of Oklahoma can delay the execution or commute his sentence (which she seems disinclined to do), but not the president of the US. POTUS can only commute/pardon federal crimes.

I not sure about the court side.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#99

Post by swehner »

ekianjo wrote: post #97

> That's why we can't have the death penalty in the US. I don't know exactly when it's permissible to kill someone. But I know for sure the Oklahoma judicial system should not be allowed to. If they have that power, all it takes is a half-assed police investigation plus a prosecutor playing hardball with plea bargains, and innocent people die. Mmm? So, because the system is not perfect, we should remove death penalty…

You ask "Is that seriously the point PG is making here?"

I think that is indeed the case.

I also suggest that your writing doesn't make any kind of valuable argument against that suggestion. Yes, of course, "because the system is not perfect, we should remove death penalty altogether." That's the way it is.

When you write "There should be strong consequences for murder and certainly Death Row has its place as well," well, maybe you need some more time to think about what those "strong consequences" are?! My impression is that you'll have a difficult time coming up with reasons to support your choices.

I always find people who worry about the death penalty have some kind of delusion, are somehow obsessed with the question, for no good reason. Unable to cope with the world as it is.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#100

Post by philwelch »

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…

The purpose of a jury isn't necessarily to make the best, most legally correct decision. The purpose of a jury is to put the people in control of the state.

One could argue, perhaps from the experience of China, that elections aren't the most effective means of choosing political leaders. But this misses the point of elections.

Post reply on HN