151–160 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We build jails for people we're afraid of, and fill them with people we're mad at
We put the people we're genuinely afraid of in extralegal holding facilities instead. (Though we're not scared of what they'd do , mind you; usually it's what they'd say that's the problem. Non-allied parties who know classified information they shouldn't are effectively infohazards from a government's perspective.)
Central Prison (where death row is for the state of NC) is right by NC State's campus. While I was there I was a heavy metal radio host for WKNC, and received a lot of letters from death row inmates. Very few letters were of the type I was expecting at the time: "Play this Cradle of Filth song for me, or I will file down shards of my broken mirror in order to kill you". Along with very entertaining, if graphic, piece…
I hadn't heard of Golphin before, so I was curious to read more, and it seems that he's no longer on death row, as of December 2012: http://www.rrdailyherald.com/access/nc-judge-commutes-deaths...
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.
In this case:
Means: he knew the person who committed the physical attack and had influence over this person
Motive: the victim was accusing him of embezzling $6000
Opportunity: plenty
Proof defendant actually acted on the motive: he attempted to hide the body from discovery, helped hide the victims car, contributed to a conspiracy to cut the body up and dissolve it in acid, split the money from the victim's wallet with the other man involved, and made sure that cleaning staff that he managed were reassigned so that they would not find the body. None of this is in dispute!
This is by itself enough to convict him.
Many people are also unaware of the high cost and inefficiency of the death penalty in the U.S. With 3002 (as of April 2015) inmates on death row, there were 35 executions in 2014. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf Depending on the state, a trial with a death penalty could cost anywhere from half a million dollars more, to millions more than a trial without a death penalty. Even at the absurdly…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In all of the mistrials and cases where innocent people have been killed, someone has thought the party was guilty. The thing that makes the death penalty barbaric is that people have misplaced confidence in their opinions.
There are two issues here that most commentary about this case seems to be happy to conflate: - Is he guilty - Should he be executed These are independent questions. One is a question of fact, and there seems to be almost no credible reason to doubt his guilt. The other is a question of ethics and policy. As for your argument on why the death penalty is barbaric, it is not a valid argument. Reductio ad absurdum, your…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In all of the mistrials and cases where innocent people have been killed, someone has thought the party was guilty. The thing that makes the death penalty barbaric is that people have misplaced confidence in their opinions.
There are two issues here that most commentary about this case seems to be happy to conflate: - Is he guilty - Should he be executed These are independent questions. One is a question of fact, and there seems to be almost no credible reason to doubt his guilt. The other is a question of ethics and policy. As for your argument on why the death penalty is barbaric, it is not a valid argument. Reductio ad absurdum, your…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We put the people we're genuinely afraid of in extralegal holding facilities instead. (Though we're not scared of what they'd do , mind you; usually it's what they'd say that's the problem. Non-allied parties who know classified information they shouldn't are effectively infohazards from a government's perspective.)
Oh my, that is quite scary, but I'm sure you have no examples.
"There" is reasonable doubt doesn't mean much. Reasonable doubt is not an observable quantity, like water on Mars; the question is whether jurors in the case doubted of the culpability of the accused. Obviously they didn't. If they did, that may save this man's life, but do nothing against death penalty. Death penalty is barbaric; if you can make the case that guilty people should not be executed, I think it's much s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are two issues here that most commentary about this case seems to be happy to conflate: - Is he guilty - Should he be executed These are independent questions. One is a question of fact, and there seems to be almost no credible reason to doubt his guilt. The other is a question of ethics and policy. As for your argument on why the death penalty is barbaric, it is not a valid argument. Reductio ad absurdum, your…
You can't give someone their life back. Nearly any other punishment can be stopped.
For example, there are tons of people in prison for 5 years, 20 years, lifetimes that don't have the intelligence, resources, or opportunity to 'have their punishment stopped'. They will serve out their time despite being innocent, and despite not getting the death sentence. It in theory could be stopped, since it's not irreversible, but it will not be stopped and nothing will be done.
I find it hard to believe that a form of punishment is more just or better in any other way because it 'can, but actually won't be, stopped'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your questions (and link) are good, but I think you might be misinterpreting Paul's logic. He hasn't concluded that Glossip is definitely innocent (although he thinks he probably is), rather he's concluded that in the absence of physical evidence and with the majority of testimony being provided by a witness who has a clear motive to implicate someone else, that there must be "reasonable doubt". He may be wrong, and…
I've served on two juries. In both cases, a drunk driver was acquitted. In both cases, the defendant's guilt was obvious, and the cause was a single juror who hated cops. (Or, more indirectly, the cause was an arrogant young DA who wasn't aggressive enough in voir dire.) On one of these cases, I was the last juror to hold out. It was like "12 Angry Men" in reverse: "12 Hungry Men And Women." It was 5pm, I wanted dinn…
Personally, I'm not against the death penalty in theory. In certain cases, executing criminals may be the best course of action. But I'd like it to be reserved for cases where the guilt is certain and the debate is about the severity of the punishment, rather than ones like this where the guilt itself may be in doubt. My statement that juries are likely to occasionally sentence innocent people to die does not necessarily mean that this is not the least bad of the available bad options. I don't know enough about this particular case to know whether this applies here.
> Supposing Glossip is innocent -- which doesn't seem
> terribly likely once we read the piece above, which is far
> more detailed and down-to-earth than the emotional appeals
> that triggered pg.
> What would your response have been?
I probably don't understand your question --- I think you are asking my opinion on whether we should deport illegal aliens who are convicted of violent crimes? If so, then yes. But more importantly I think we should realign the rules we have on the books with the enforcement of those laws. I generally have a stronger belief in rule-of-law as a principle than I have belief that any particular law is or is not correct. I could be happy either with stricter enforcement of current law, or movement toward something like Appiah's Cosmopolitanism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism