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

161–170 of 233 posts

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#161

Post by jessaustin »

justin_vanw wrote: post #153
rottencupcakes wrote: post #21

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.

You don't need CSI to convict someone of murder. 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…

Wow I'm surprised that we're only talking about $6000. Maybe this is a privileged reaction, but in USA is that sum worth all the trouble of even a "successful" murder, let alone the calamity this turned out to be? Morality helps morons more than it helps rational people. A rational person would realize that a disagreement over $6000 will be much less hassle over the long term than a murder conspiracy. Someone to whom that is not obvious, and who also lacks enough moral sense not to murder in such a situation, really is a threat to the public. Maybe we shouldn't kill him, and maybe a long prison sentence isn't the best answer, but at the very least the public ought to be warned that this guy is completely irrational and might decide to murder for no good reason at all.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#162

Post by jessaustin »

voltagex_ wrote: post #71
mrdrozdov wrote: post #39

Vice released a special last night about mass incarceration related to non-violent drug crimes. It included President Obama visiting a federal prison and interviews with Former Atty. Gen. Eric Holder. Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjWSW94-P3Y Article: https://news.vice.com/article/president-obama-heads-to-priso...

I don't always agree with the content / viewpoints that Vice puts out, but this was one of the most well made and powerful documentaries I've seen in a while. I'd like to think that President Obama's reactions were genuine and that things might slowly start to change in the US.

A "genuine" president would have issued hundreds of thousands of pardons for drug "crimes" by this point in his presidency. Obama is just another politician.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#163

Post by jessaustin »

anacrolix wrote: post #124

More generally it seems his argument is: Lessen the punishment because the judicial system isn't reliable. That doesn't seem right. Maybe it should be fixed, rather than introducing hacks like this.

How could any such system be improved ("fixed" seems to be asking too much), other than through hacks?

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#164

Post by ghostDancer »

justin_vanw wrote: post #159
afandian wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't give someone their life back. Nearly any other punishment can be stopped.

That's basically true, but maybe it is pretty simplistic. 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…

There's always a possibility to correct the mistake but with death penalty there's no way back. You are telling that if you find you have a deadly disease you won't try a treatment cause in the end you are going to die anyway.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#165

Post by voltagex_ »

jessaustin wrote: post #162
voltagex_ wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't always agree with the content / viewpoints that Vice puts out, but this was one of the most well made and powerful documentaries I've seen in a while. I'd like to think that President Obama's reactions were genuine and that things might slowly start to change in the US.

A "genuine" president would have issued hundreds of thousands of pardons for drug "crimes" by this point in his presidency. Obama is just another politician.

Is there any precedent for anything like that?

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#166

Post by jessaustin »

danieltillett wrote: post #134
peeters wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a pretty reasonable suggestion. The jury that sentences a convict to death has to actually carry out the sentence. I suspect that the number of strong supporters of the death penalty will drop dramatically when faced with having to perform the sentence with their own hands.

I sat voir dire for the trial of an accused child molester. I'm sure at least some of the venom displayed that morning was cynical, in order to get out of serving on the jury. Significant numbers of people, however, didn't strike me as intelligent enough to be cynical. So, I would say there are some crimes that would have no shortage of jurors willing to swing the ax themselves.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#167

Post by jessaustin »

tdylan wrote: post #130
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'.

Do you intend to suggest that Ahmed should have gone to jail, and that the teachers, administrators, cops, and prosecutors who tried to send him there were somehow wronged by the "Internet mob"?

'Cause that would be silly...

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#168

Post by jessaustin »

voltagex_ wrote: post #165
jessaustin wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "genuine" president would have issued hundreds of thousands of pardons for drug "crimes" by this point in his presidency. Obama is just another politician.

Is there any precedent for anything like that?

Andrew Johnson pardoned everyone who fought for the Confederacy, other than Jeff Davis and a few other bigwigs. Sure, armed insurrection is a less serious crime than getting high, but I think the precedent stands.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#169

Post by tdylan »

jessaustin wrote: post #167
tdylan wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

Do you intend to suggest that Ahmed should have gone to jail, and that the teachers, administrators, cops, and prosecutors who tried to send him there were somehow wronged by the "Internet mob"? 'Cause that would be silly...

Absolutely not. Sending a kid to jail because he brought a clock to school is silly. However, a kid who bought a clock from the 80s, than repackaged it in a pencil box claiming it his 'invention', and put a timer on it making it beep in class, who was then evasive when answering questions, on the day after 9/11 anniversary, definitely deserves some suspicion.

What I object to is the praise he's gotten, from Obama to Zuckerberg. Without even one look at the facts of the situation.

Re: The Case of Richard Glossip

#170

Post by DanielBMarkham »

Been thinking about this subject for a long time, for very personal reasons.

Capital punishment exists so that people don't go get guns and kill lunatics that have done them harm. For some crimes, only being told "We're going to kill him" holds the social fabric together.

It's not justice, it's not fair, and it's a terrible way to run things. One could make the pragmatic argument that if you're going to have a death penalty, then hanging them outside the courthouse the day after the trial is the way to do it. Otherwise you're just making a mockery of trying to be fair -- which this was never about in the first place.

When you see somebody kill his family and then say "I deserve the death penalty", when you see families torn apart by evil who demand that the criminal must die, when you see people who are never going to be anything but killers being set free to kill again? Even though you might be against the death penalty, it's pretty obvious why it exists.

So I've given up fighting against the death penalty. These things move in cycles. Another 50 years we won't have one and people will be clamoring for one again. Instead, I'm extremely pissed about what pg mentions in closing: prosecutors playing hardball with plea bargains.

Whatever you want the laws to be, I've seen enough prosecutorial misconduct over the last decade to last several lifetimes. The vast majority of the time they're doing a great job. But 1-10% of the time the public is getting screwed. The incentives are all wrong and oversight in nonexistent. I've seen them cover for bad cop decisions, screw over aaronsw, refuse to take DNA evidence that would release innocent people from jail -- the list goes on an on. Something is really rotten and needs to be fixed.

Even if you believe in the death penalty, you have to admit that the criminal justice system is so broken that it's way beyond a reasonable doubt that we're executing people we shouldn't. The system needs fixing. Not only will this save lives, it will result in many people either not going to prison or serving much less time than they currently are.

Post reply on HN