
AMA with one of the pro bono defense attorneys for Richard Glossip - jl
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3nmz8w/i_am_don_knight_one_of_the_pro_bono_defense/
======
paul
A bit of background on the Glossip case (from PG):
[http://pg.posthaven.com/the-case-of-richard-
glossip](http://pg.posthaven.com/the-case-of-richard-glossip)

If we can't stop the state from killing a person known to most likely be
innocent, it makes me wonder what hope we have with genuinely complex issues
such as gun violence.

~~~
rayiner
> A 2014 study by the National Academy of Sciences found that at least 4% of
> people sentenced to death are innocent.

That means that 96% are guilty. That's beyond a reasonable doubt and probably
not far from the best accuracy you can expect from an inherently fuzzy system.
The system is not the problem. The problem is people who are willing to still
have the death penalty in a system where beyond a reasonable doubt means 1 in
20 people who are killed are innocent. That's not the system's fault. That's
the public's value judgment.

~~~
dang
The public's value judgments can change quite rapidly, and may well about
this, once this information becomes widely distributed.

The visceral revulsion evoked by executing someone innocent must be nearly
universal, despite disagreement about the death penalty itself.

~~~
tptacek
People rationalize. Emily Bazelon writes about an Alabama case in which a man
who plead guilty to a rape has been effectively exonerated by DNA evidence
denied to him prior to taking his plea deal (in that state, prosecutors aren't
required to furnish evidence prior to a plea agreement, but rather only before
a trial). Despite eyewitness testimony from the victim (now deceased) who
adamantly insists there was only a single assailant, the prosecutor insists
that DNA or no DNA, the accused must have been present for the crime; the
accused remains in prison.

So I guess I'm suggesting that words "innocent" or "guilty" suggest a clarity
of judgement that most people don't actually have in practice. So the
condemned didn't actually kill the victim. He must have been involved somehow!

