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

121–130 of 233 posts

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#121

Post by rtpg »

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.

>fear of potential ramifications will very quickly change behavior.

Considering that fear of ramifications has proven entirely ineffective in preventing certain kinds of behavior in other aspects of the justice system, I don't think this would be as effective as you might think

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#122

Post by chroma »

joshuaheard wrote: post #90

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

So if a government was sufficiently competent, you'd be in favor of them executing people for some crimes?

I don't ask this to be snarky. I'd like for the death penalty to be abolished. But I do want to know if that's your true reason for rejecting the death penalty.[1] If it's not, perhaps there's a different, stronger reason for your view.

1. http://lesswrong.com/lw/wj/is_that_your_true_rejection/

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#123

Post by peeters »

barney54 wrote: post #63

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.

Why put the governor on the hook, but not the majority of Americans who support the death penalty? If tomorrow 75% of Americans disagreed with the death penalty, it would be abolished.

It's not your politicians who are keeping the death penalty, it is your citizens.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#125

Post by lotharbot »

verbin217 wrote: post #85
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.

http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss10 (2010) and http://sda.berkeley.edu/sdaweb/analysis/?dataset=gss14 (2014) are huge data sets on peoples' demographics and opinions.

Run the table "CAPPUN" vs "RELIG". Nearly every major religious position in the US (including atheist/agnostic/none) is largely in favor of the death penalty, with only Muslims and Native Americans coming out as more than 50% opposed in both sets, and "other eastern" being over 50% in the newer set.

Also of note: whites are much more in favor of the death penalty than other races, Republicans are slightly more in favor than Democrats, people with higher incomes are more in favor than those with lower incomes, and people with average education (high school or 2-year college) are more in favor than those with either very high or very low education.

(I'm from a religious subgroup that's anti-death-penalty, anti-war, pro-life, etc. and I would argue that the death penalty isn't consistent with a Christian ethic, but plenty of people obviously disagree with me.)

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#126

Post by bruceb »

Not the same case but Kayla Gissendaner is set to be executed tomorrow. http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/us/georgia-sets-execution/inde... Unless the Georgia parole board changes its mind. She is guilty of having her husband killed. Guilt is not at doubt. The justice of her punishment is.

Her children suffered from her crime but they are pleading to keep her alive. She is the only parent they have. Killing their only remaining parent is victimizing them again. Their pleas here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8pgceAhqJo

Georgia parole board contact info: http://pap.georgia.gov/contact-us

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#127

Post by jqm »

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…

Yes, but the problem isn't that the system isn't perfect. The problem is that the system is horribly broken and doesn't really administer justice.

When you have plea bargains and negations and hardball if one doesn't just plead guilty irrespective of guilt, the concept of justice has been irrevocably subverted. And that's where we are at. And it's why we can't have the death penalty anymore. Because the system isn't working like it should.

For the record, I'm not opposed to the death penalty. In fact, I think in an ideal system it would be used rapidly and impartially from time to time. Some people are probably not redeemable. Some people probably shouldn't live anymore. Death happens to all of us... I don't believe it to be the tragedy some consider. The problem is... right now we have a horribly broken system that has zero business killing anybody.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#128

Post by emgoldstein »

I have to wonder: before writing this essay, did pg read anything written by anyone on the opposite side of this case? For instance, this?

https://www.readfrontier.com/investigation/two-truths-and-a-...

If not, it seems like a pretty remarkable procedure to arrive at such a strong conclusion, with no other information besides a brief summary by advocates for the defense. Has pg ever served on a jury? If so, would he make his mind up this way?

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#129

Post by lexcorvus »

The subject is different, but the point is the same:

It is hard to imagine technology restriction working, because we have to get past imagining this terribly powerful tool being wielded by our utterly incompetent and corrupt rulers. The same problem exists in contemplating effective protectionism. The most obvious outcomes of both these tools simply amount to featherbedding if not outright theft. As a result, protectionism has gained a bad name, and technology restriction is well outside the policy landscape. Yet in actual reality, the problem is not with the tool, but the wielder. Once we admit that USG isn't working and has to go, we can imagine replacing it with something that doesn't suck—and can actually wield such a tool.

—Mencius Moldbug, "Sam Altman is not a blithering idiot" (http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/03/sam-alt...)

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#130

Post by tdylan »

aashaykumar92 wrote: post #35

A solution is to build a platform that crowdsources such cases to raise awareness AND a call for action. The community would need to be unbelievable but it's not at all impossible. Once there are 100,000 signatures on any petition under 30 days, the White House guarantees a response. There are many great communities with more than 100,000 active users. Why not?

As bad as this situation is, Internet mob justice has a terrible track record and is not the solution. Most recent example is Ahmed the 'inventor'.
Post reply on HN