
“This mistake will become the thing you are best known for” - chesterfield
https://twitter.com/paulg/status/649274159076274176
======
sz4kerto
[https://mobile.twitter.com/GovMaryFallin/status/649328672231...](https://mobile.twitter.com/GovMaryFallin/status/649328672231555072)

"I have issued a 37 day stay for Richard Glossip while the state addresses
questions about its execution protocol"

~~~
iaw
It's to investigate the legality of potassium acetate and, unfortunately, does
not address any issue that could save his life. It's 37 days more time to try
to come up with a challenge to save his life, but the challenge here was about
the methodology of execution.

The governor also threw in an apology to the victims family which makes me
think that she is of no mind to spare his life.

~~~
dTal
Her Twitter blew up. Take a look at the list of celebrities and organizations
that called on her to do this - even the Pope! This is a "face-saving" (if
transparent) way to buy time while she works out if Paul Graham is right.

[https://twitter.com/search?q=%40GovMaryFallin&src=typd](https://twitter.com/search?q=%40GovMaryFallin&src=typd)

~~~
iaw
That's wholly possible, I don't know the specific inner workings of her
office. I think it is also possible that someone outside created this
challenge on constitutional grounds and she has to legally respond to it. All-
in-all the delay is a good thing, I'm just concerned that she's too 'hard on
crime' to back down here.

------
bradleyjg
I had a professor in law school -- Robert Blecker -- who is one of the few, if
not the only, full tenured US law professors that is a staunch advocate for
the death penalty. He is the go to guy when journalists need someone to give
the pro-death penalty point of view.

He doesn't think Glossip ought to be executed.[1] That's good enough for me.

[1] [https://www.vice.com/read/a-possibly-innocent-oklahoma-
death...](https://www.vice.com/read/a-possibly-innocent-oklahoma-death-row-
inmate-caught-a-break-hours-before-his-execution-916)

------
joeevans1000
Albert Einstein:

"I have reached the conviction that the abolition of the death penalty is
desirable. Reasons: 1) Irreparability in the event of an error of justice, 2)
Detrimental moral influence of the execution procedure on those who, whether
directly or indirectly, have to do with the procedure."

~~~
jack9
All events are irreparable. Justice cannot be absolute, in either direction.
This is not a flaw in morality, but in our limited abilities. Acceptance of
that is not weakness, but awareness.

No amount of intelligence necessitates wisdom. Sorry Einstein.

~~~
rcthompson
No punishment can be _completely_ undone, but there are few, if any,
punishments as irreparable as the death penalty.

------
interlocutor
One of the saddest death penalty cases I have heard is that of Cameron Todd
Willingham. Texas executed him in 2004 for arson that killed three of his
daughters. The "science" behind the arson conviction turned out to be not a
science at all. I believe he was 100% innocent. More here:
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/08/03/fresh-d...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/08/03/fresh-
doubts-over-a-texas-execution/)

~~~
RIMR
First he lost his wife and kids in a tragic fire. Then he was arrested and
charged with their murder. Then, using investigative techniques that have been
scientifically proven to be inaccurate, he was convicted and sentenced to
death. Then he was executed.

If the state can inflict this kind of nightmare on one person, it could do it
to any one of us.

~~~
interlocutor
Correction: He didn't lose his wife in the fire. His wife stood by him
(initially) and didn't believe he deliberately started the fire. But shortly
before the execution she reversed herself. See:
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/cameron-todd-
willin...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/cameron-todd-willingham-
stacy-kuykendall-texas-pardon_n_2058042.html)

~~~
MichaelGG
Which is probably the only sane way to cope with such an event.

------
Quanticles
The background to this case seems a little one-sided, is there anything that
explains how he was convicted?

It's supposed to be "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". Supposedly the only
evidence was another person's testimony, who was going to get the death
penalty if they didn't (i.e., they were compelled). Even without being
compelled, it's still reasonable to believe that the person may be lying.
There must be more to this....

~~~
ellyagg
I read this yesterday and it was useful:

[http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6244.pdf](http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6244.pdf)

~~~
vfrogger
Thanks for the link. There's some VERY suspect behavior by this guy. Is it
beyond a shadow of a doubt? I don't know, but lying that the boss was running
an errand to another employee the morning after he was murdered certainly
seems to align closer to the "hitman's" side of the story. Now couple that
with another employee being told by the boss that he was going to run the
hotel if this guy got fired for embezzlement, and you have a motive, the guy
lying about his boss's whereabouts after the murder, and the hitman stating
that they split $4000 taken from the bosses car, and they both had well over
$1000 in cash their possession when they were arrested. Honestly, it sounds
like the only evidence that this guy is innocent is that another convict said
that the hitman bragged about "setting the guy up". That is one heck of a
setup if true.

~~~
MichaelGG
It's entirely possible that the one that actually did the murder (Justin
Sneed) came up with the idea, proposed it, and Glossip just went along with it
or sanctioned it ("great idea, here's how we can do it"). Their actions would
be basically identical on the outside right?

~~~
vfrogger
excellent point. I do suppose that being an accomplice to murder probably
carries a less severe punishment than hiring a hitman and being the mastermind
behind it. I'm not a big fan of the death penalty in general, and wish it
wouldn't be used in today's society. But claiming that this guy is "innocent"
seems to be a bit of a stretch to me. It's amazing how one-sided the articles
I've read about this have been.

------
Axsuul
This tweet desperately needs some context:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Glossip](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Glossip)

~~~
dang
Also
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10306024](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10306024),
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10293793](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10293793),
and [https://theintercept.com/2015/09/29/glossip-to-die-
tomorrow/](https://theintercept.com/2015/09/29/glossip-to-die-tomorrow/),
which I don't think was posted to HN.

------
_pmf_
What I cannot fathom is that police officers are universally judged for
decisions they have to take in split seconds, yet judges, attorneys (and
ultimately the governor) do not have any repercussions at all if they cause
the death of an innocent person in trials that last months or years.

~~~
hackuser
Not only do I think there is a lack of accountability for negligent or
mistaken judges, etc., but I've seen no concern for accuracy on their part.
For example, if you were designing a system that made determinations about
reality, wouldn't you study its accuracy, including false-positive and false-
negative rates? If I was just an individual judge or DA, I'd like to think I'd
implment it. Such quality control should be the norm but I've never seen it
outside of academic studies.

A couple of more tangential points:

> police officers are universally judged for decisions they have to take in
> split seconds

I think the objection that many people (certainly not all) have is that police
escape judgment; they act with impunity. Recently there's been media coverage
of some incidents, but that is the exception.

> judges, attorneys (and ultimately the governor) do not have any
> repercussions at all

The state, on whose behalf those people are acting, does have repercussions in
the form of large payments due to civil lawsuits. I do think that there is not
enough accountability for ne

------
downandout
One of the most crucial aspects of the death penalty is that it is reserved
for people that physically kill other human beings. The mere fact that the
laws of a US state even allowed the possibility of a death sentence for
someone that did not personally kill someone else is a serious problem. That's
before even considering the possibility that he may have been wrongly
convicted.

Personally, I don't understand why we have the death penalty in the US. First,
the possibility of a wrongful conviction is real. Second, we have prisons that
are brutal and allow very few escapes, making life in prison a far worse
punishment than the death penalty. Remember that the death penalty for a
prisoner these days consists of falling asleep and not waking up. There simply
are no valid reasons to impose the death penalty in a country like the US.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
What? Glossip hired a hitman to kill someone. How is that not murder? Just
because you're wealthy enough to not do the dirty work means you're somehow
above the DP, but poor people who can't should get the DP? That's insane!

There are irregular aspects to this case, but the idea of hitman hirers being
immune from the DP is pretty crazy. That's the same as murdering someone with
your own hands, both morally and legally.

~~~
ak39
No, what's insane is the collective desire, the organised process, the co-
opting of doctors against their Hippocratic Oath to see the end of another
human being's life. Guilty or not, the idea of "punishing" by killing is
barbaric, illogical and uneducated.

The field of neuroscience based psychiatry and the works of the great minds
like Robert Sapolsky must prevail. This has to stop.

~~~
happyscrappy
>the co-opting of doctors against their Hippocratic Oath to see the end of
another human being's life

So you want to ban abortion? Assisted suicide?

~~~
ak39
Do I "want" an end to elected abortion? Yes.

Do I "want" to stop assisted suicide? No.

Do I "want" an end to organised execution of convicted criminals? Yes.

Your move.

~~~
happyscrappy
Does assisted suicide not break the Hippocratic Oath?

~~~
ak39
Not all the time. These points:

1\. There are times when doctors, in order to reduce pain in their patients,
accelerate their death as part of pain management. This is usually done at the
end of long incurable illnesses or injuries from which recovery is unlikely.
The consequence of alleviating pain can be death. Whether it is thought of
deliberately or not by the caregivers/doctors does not matter. The point is
that the event of death is hastened directly by the act of helping the
patient.

2\. The patient is choosing to end his life. (I hope you don't ask what is to
be done with depression/suicidal patients.)

... and lastly, and simply:

3\. Many times the assistance may be done by a non-doctor - so the Hippocratic
Oath may not apply directly.

------
anigbrowl
(From an NBC news summary): _Glossip 's conviction hinged largely on the
testimony of the man who actually carried out the 1997 bludgeoning murder of
his boss. That man, Justin Sneed, is serving a life sentence._

I see this over and over again in criminal justice. Someone who has actually
committed murder sells out someone else in a plea bargain and ends up with a
lighter sentence than the person who (allegedly) planned the murder but didn't
carry it out. There was a woman executed in Georgia yesterday for arranging
the killing of her husband; her lover, who carried out the deed, is eligible
for automatic parole in 2022. WTF.

------
olympus
While I agree with the opinion, what makes pg the person to quote here? There
should be a little filter before we all just latch on to what pg says. He has
great experience with technology and startups but how does that make it
something for us to care about? Is he involved in this case at all or an
expert on human rights issues?

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Yeah, its scary that PG is morphing into a liberal social media celebrity.
Especially with a contextless outraged tone like this. I never understood this
kind of easy and emotionally gratifying slacktivism. Considering his wealth
and influence, if he cared so much about DP issues, why doesn't he fund or
start a think tank or policy lobbyist organization to fight it? Yelling at
governors seems incredibly short-sighted and knee-jerk to me.

I don't think this helps matters politically, it just builds echo chambers and
extremism. I don't know any liberals, for example, who would remotely consider
any conservative view, or vice-versa. There's a real "internet identity
poltics" aspect going on here we just take on face value and don't criticize.

Even criticizing the default liberal position on the sites like HN, reddit,
etc is just an invitation to downvote hell, no wonder we can't have any kind
of interesting discourse on these forums. The majority group can just downvote
you into censorship. It sad that if you're into tech sites you have to
tolerate and unquestionably deal with angry liberal screeds all the time and
never be able to hear a rounded commentary.

We're not building common ground with our political opposites, we're not
enlightening anyone, etc. We're just yelling and being angry. What exactly do
we expect to happen here? Nothing has happened since John Edwards had
complained about the "Two Americas" back in 2004. If anything, things have
somehow gotten worse since. I suspect low information twitter, reddit, tumblr,
facebook, etc protests are a contributing factor. This is especially worrying
as we see the left consistantly lose elections in congress, the senate, the
state legislature, and the state governor's offices. As a left-leaning
moderate, this is not good and the left and far left are failing to appeal to
voters, which means conservatives will continue to win office and implement
conservative policies.

~~~
bshimmin
What a strange comment. Isn't Paul allowed to be a guy posting stuff that he
cares about on Twitter, just like the rest of us? Does his relative fame (in
some circles) have any real bearing on it?

------
jbigelow76
This will probably blow over in a few days without anything changing. If you
think otherwise, read up on Cameron Todd Willingham

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham)

~~~
cynicalkane
Willingham was convicted by expert testimony that later turned out to be
pseudoscience. This is terrible but it's easy to see how it can fool a court
system, and easy to see how close-minded people can later discount
contradictory expert testimony.

Glossip was convicted on the unverifiable testimony of a known liar. It's
evidence that wouldn't pass muster in a game of Mafia.

~~~
Natsu
I know almost nothing about this case, but from the bare-bones description in
TFA saying that two juries believed Glossip was part of a "murder for hire"
scheme, I'd say that there are lots of places where the testimony should be
verifiable:

    
    
      * Does the murderer get any benefit from identifying this
        guy (reduced sentence, etc.)?
      * Does the murderer have any motive?  That article
        implies that robbery was the motive, this could be 
        substantiated by looking at what he took, how much it
        was worth, and whether he'd have any reason to target
        this guy otherwise.  For example whether he ignored any
        obviously better targets of opportunity to get this 
        specific person.
      * Did the murderer know things about why Glossip 
        allegedly wanted this guy dead that he couldn't
        reasonably have known otherwise?
      * This was allegedly murder for hire:  did Glossip give 
        this man any large amounts of money and if he did, was
        there any other explanation?  Has he given out large
        amounts of cash before?
      * Does the murderer have any psychiatric or drug-induced 
        conditions that make him see things that aren't there?
      * Are there any provable lies in either person's story or 
        any history of lying to investigators in the past?  If 
        so, are the lies better explained by confusion or 
        self-protection?
      * Did Glossip ever know things he shouldn't have known 
        about the murder?
    

I do not claim to know the truth of any of the above statements, mind you.
It's very possible that the answers exonerate Glossip, but the story should be
something that can be corroborated and verified. There are lots of facts
implied by the story which can be substantiated (or disproved) with sufficient
investigation. So it shouldn't be the case that we just don't know--the facts
will tell a story if the questions above are carefully investigated.

That said, I would think that they really shouldn't go for the death penalty
if they don't have direct evidence, that just seems like too much. But they
could, in theory, have answers to the above that eliminate reasonable doubts
about his guilt, or lack thereof.

That aside, I am wary of the techie bias of ignoring motives entirely and
looking only at physical evidence. Death Note, of all things, illustrates the
difference the best, with Light always taking pains to produce no physical
evidence, while L counters this with deep insight into his motives. We saw a
lot of that with Reiser, as I recall.

In the end, though, I lack sufficient data to claim to have any reasonable
idea about whether Glossip is innocent or guilty. All I'm saying here is that
it shouldn't be the case that it's somehow unknowable or unverifiable given
enough investigation into the questions posed above.

\-----

EDIT: Another comment pointed to this:
[http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6244.pdf](http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6244.pdf)

I can see lots of places to corroborate (or disprove) the story -

> Sneed said that he and Glossip went to room 102 to make sure Van Treese was
> dead.

This could have left physical evidence (or witnesses).

> He found an envelope with about $4000.00 cash under the seat. He came back
> and swept up the glass. He put the broken glass in room 102, just inside the
> door. He said that Glossip took the envelope from him and divided the money
> with him. He also testified that Glossip helped him put a shower curtain
> over the window, and he helped him cover Van Treese’s body.

There may be physical evidence left by this (or not), not to mention the money
& envelope (fingerprints?).

> D-Anna Wood testified that she and Glossip were awakened at around 4:00 a.m.
> by Sneed. She testified that Glossip got out of bed and went to the front
> door. When he returned, Glossip told her that it was Sneed reporting that
> two drunks got into a fight and broke a window. She testified that Glossip
> then returned to bed.

This seems to say that Sneed is lying, unless D-Anna has some motive for
protecting Glossip. Given that they're in bed together, and given the
following, it's not implausible that she was protecting him.

> [Billye Hooper] asked Glossip about the car, and Glossip told her that Mr.
> Van Treese had left to get supplies for remodeling rooms.

This is highly suspicious.

> Cliff Everhart, who worked security for Mr. Van Treese in exchange for a 1%
> ownership, was already at the motel. He told Sneed to check all of the
> rooms. Sneed indicated that he did so.

This is also really suspicious. He really should've known this guy was dead by
then, but it really looks like he's avoiding it. And there are two people
poking holes in his story.

> Subsequent searches revealed that Sneed possessed approximately $1,700.00 in
> cash, and that Glossip possessed approximately $1,200.00. Glossip claimed
> this money came from his paycheck and proceeds from the sale of vending
> machines and his furniture

This corroborates Glossip's story, though we'd have to see if there was any
merit to Sneed's alibi or not. One could look for physical evidence around the
money, etc.

~~~
Natsu
To answer my own questions:

    
    
      * Yes, Sneed has a motive for lying (reduced sentence).
      * Yes, Sneed has a motive (loss of job).  So does Glossip.
      * Sneed could have known this info without Glossip.
      * Yes, Sneed got lots of money.  The judgement was not clear
        about how much we know about where it came from or Glossip's
        connection to it.
      * Robbery doesn't make a lot of sense as a motive: Sneed had
        access to the other rooms to steal and better targets.  But
        Sneed had other possible motives than robbery, too.
      * Someone else mentioned Sneed was a meth addict, but this wans't
        mentioned in this ruling that I saw.
      * There are several big lies in Glossip's story that he has no
        good explanation for.  Him avoiding letting others into room 102
        is highly suspect.
      * There's also evidence that someone lied to protect him, given the
        story from the woman who was sleeping with him.  I'm not clear on
        what her relationship to Glossip is, only that the testimony puts
        both of them into the same bed that night.
    

So, we do have good reason to believe that he's covering something up here.
This could be further substantiated with physical evidence tying him to the
envelope of money, etc. In particular, to the curtain covering the body. But
there are also problems with Sneed's story.

I'd say they should, if they haven't already done so, gather physical evidence
that corroborates Sneed's story. If he's being honest, I don't think Glossip
was so perfect as to have left nothing behind. I suppose they'd explain that
away by saying that he managed the motel and might have touched any random
thing, but having his fingerprints/hair/etc. on something connected to the
body would make this a lot harder to explain away.

It looks to me like he's lying and the juries appear to have agreed. I
wouldn't care to execute someone on a case like that, however.

------
johngalt
Background:

[http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-richard-
glo...](http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-richard-glossip-
explainer-20150930-htmlstory.html)

~~~
tootie
I don't get it. If he hired the guy to commit the murder, that's 100% Murder
One and is a life sentence in any state. I oppose the death penalty in
general, but I don't see how this guy is innocent because he didn't swing the
bat. Hiring someone to commit murder is treated more harshly than a personal
act of rage because it's premeditated.

~~~
peejaybee
Yes, of course.

However, the primary evidence we have that Glossip ordered the killing is the
testimony of the guy who actually did the deed, and who avoided a death
sentence in exchange for that testimony. It's a little fishy.

------
tveita
Why would it? People are wrongfully executed all the time, but can you off the
top of your head name one governor who has become known for that?

Executions serve no purpose for society except to satisfy our thirst for
revenge, it makes little difference if the person they kill is innocent or
not.

If he turns out to be innocent, they can always execute someone else to save
face. Not the ones responsible for his execution, of course. Ironically,
wrongfully executing someone doesn't carry the death penalty.

~~~
monochromatic
That's _awfully_ cynical.

~~~
draw_down
This is name-calling, not an argument

~~~
monochromatic
Ok, here's argument.

> People are wrongfully executed all the time

Citation needed. I'm not aware of people who have been persuasively shown to
be innocent post-execution.

> Executions serve no purpose for society except to satisfy our thirst for
> revenge,

Wrong, many studies show a deterrent effect.

> it makes little difference if the person they kill is innocent or not.

What? Of course it does.

> If he turns out to be innocent, they can always execute someone else to save
> face. Not the ones responsible for his execution, of course.

This hardly deserves a response.

~~~
Nadya
_> Citation needed. I'm not aware of people who have been persuasively shown
to be innocent post-execution._

The size of the US list is concerning - and it isn't even complete. There's
also the possibility of executions that haven't been further looked into where
the person may have also been innocent.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution)

~~~
monochromatic
In your first link, I'm seeing pre-execution exonerations, not innocents
executed. In your second, I'm seeing that some people have "doubts." Not
exactly the same as "the wrong person was definitely executed."

------
jeffdavis
There are at least 5 questions here which seem to be conflated:

1\. Is there a good process in place?

2\. Was the process followed?

3\. Is he actually guilty?

4\. Is execution an appropriate punishment in his case?

5\. Is execution ever an appropriate punishment?

~~~
phkahler
I would suggest that your 3,4 and 5 are actually just questioning 1 and 2 in
specific ways.

~~~
jeffdavis
No, you could have a horrible process and he could still be guilty.

That's why I'm trying to separate the issues. I'm confused about why this case
is getting particular attention.

------
peterwwillis
Did I miss something? Why is PG so obsessed over this one guy Glossip? The
state (and federal level) has killed all sorts of innocent people over the
years, and the police (and judicial process) kill innocent, unarmed people all
the time. It makes the efforts like those of PG now seem, well....
pathetically emotional and short-term. And, frankly, a little racist.

A rich white tech magnate suddenly cares about a single innocent white guy
getting killed by the state, while saying nothing about innocent unarmed black
men get killed by the state all the time, every year.

Save Glossip, sure, it's a good cause. But PG isn't going to invest this much
of himself in the next Glossip, or the next Rumain Brisbon, or the next Tamir
Rice, or the next Akai Gurley, or the next Kajieme Powell, or the next Ezell
Ford, or the next Dante Parker, or the next Michael Brown, or the next John
Crawford III, or the next Tyree Woodson, or the next Eric Garner, or the next
Victor White III, or the next Yvette Smith, or the next McKenzie Cochran, or
the next Jordan Baker, or the next Andy Lopez, or the next .....

~~~
outworlder
> But PG isn't going to invest this much of himself

Yes, a single tweet is such a high investment of one's time.

~~~
peterwwillis
Clearly you don't invest much time in your comments, as you failed to see the
other 13 tweets he's made about it in the past few days as well as the blog
post.

~~~
outworlder
I stand corrected. I did miss the blog post.

------
kevinalexbrown
Fwiw, the increased scrutiny that goes with death penalty cases raises
uncomfortable questions about the justice system in general.

Would this case be acceptable if Glossip had only received a life sentence?
I'm not sure either way. But it does seem that the justice system should have
more accommodation for uncertainty than a complicated appeals process that
seems to focus on procedural issues.

What form would an uncertainty-conscious justice system take? Economists might
suggest that you can account for uncertainty merely by lowering punishment
accordingly to account for "risk," (e.g. we will lower punishment by X percent
because we're only Y percent sure you are guilty) but that doesn't seem to
work here. On the other hand we clearly can't have a justice system that never
acts for fear of wrongful incarceration.

------
seliopou
This situation is a bit reminiscent of the Randal Dale Adams[0] case, which
was the subject of the documentary The Thin Blue Line[1]. In a nutshell, Adams
was sentenced to death for the murder of a police officer based on the
fabricated eye-witness accounts, and more importantly the testimony of another
suspect. Won't spoil it for those that haven't seen it. It's a good
documentary though, albeit with somewhat cheesy reenactments.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Dale_Adams](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Dale_Adams)

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Blue_Line_(1988_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Blue_Line_\(1988_film\))

------
SrslyJosh
The governor's tweet has been deleted. Anyone have a screenshot?

------
smoyer
I'm not completely anti-death penalty, but I think there's a very strong
argument that we can't properly administer death penalty cases (so I'm
effectively saying we shouldn't execute people while recognizing that there
are crimes that warrant the death penalty).

In any case, since we're calling on the governor to stay this execution, I'd
suggest we're concerned enough with properly separating the innocent from the
guilty to call for a moratorium on drone strikes, smart bomb raids, etc. If we
want to kill a specific terrorist (or other military target), we should send a
sniper. How about a second campaign to convince @obama?

------
ak39
I have just two things to say about this sad event:

1) A quote:

"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its
prisons." ~ Dostoyevsky

2) This link: [http://brainsontrial.com/](http://brainsontrial.com/)

For me, the conversation that Alan Alda has walking on the campus of Stanford
Uni with Robert Sapolsky is quite possibly the most intelligent and paradigm
shifting exchange ever!

Edit: Direct link: [http://brainsontrial.com/watch-videos/video/alan-alda-
with-r...](http://brainsontrial.com/watch-videos/video/alan-alda-with-robert-
sapolsky-of-stanford-university/)

------
artursapek
It looks like he has gotten some more time.

[https://twitter.com/willrdupree/status/649328519596503040](https://twitter.com/willrdupree/status/649328519596503040)

[https://twitter.com/EJUSA/status/649328136849629184](https://twitter.com/EJUSA/status/649328136849629184)

------
hyperliner
"Richard Glossip case: Here's the story of his victim"

[http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/richard-glossip-
case-h...](http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/richard-glossip-case-here-s-
the-story-of-his-victim/article_1247f4c4-a8be-5492-b438-1c5d39c8b571.html)

------
dpieri
It appears a stay has been issued by the Governor:
[https://twitter.com/grahambrewer/status/649327710699831296](https://twitter.com/grahambrewer/status/649327710699831296)

------
lovemetender
I think the death penalty should be abolished, both for adults and for unborn
children.

~~~
bkmartin
Agree 100% I have a really hard time listening to pro-life people say how
great the death penalty is, and then hear abortion supporters protest over the
death penalty. Both acts grossly dehumanize the deceased whether they are
guilty of doing the same thing, or haven't even been given the chance. As a
civilized society, we are better than that.

------
josefresco
Relevant:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Fallin#Lethal_injection_c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Fallin#Lethal_injection_controversy)

------
philtar
If I may pitch in:

The part about what he did is completely irrelevant. Sparing a life is the
point regardless of what the crime was.

This is the sort of bias you get from perspectives with a word count.

~~~
monochromatic
> The part about what he did is completely irrelevant.

Unfortunately, actions have consequences.

> Sparing a life is the point regardless of what the crime was.

Most people would disagree with you here, word count or no.

~~~
comrh
Most people? More countries have abolished it then still use it.

~~~
monochromatic
Many countries have abolished it. That doesn't mean much about popular
opinion.

------
ryandvm
Sadly, I think Paul Graham underestimates the American public's ability to
forgive for the overzealous application of "justice".

------
jayzalowitz
Fuck it, lets communicate with Gov. Fallin the way she understands.. creating
a super pac to fund any opponent against the execution.

------
linkydinkandyou
Many people are against the death penalty not because there aren't people who
deserve it, but because it's possible to make a mistake. I wonder if that's
what PG means here by "mistake."

------
happyscrappy
I am opposed to the death penalty for various unpopular reasons and PG is
usually very eloquent, I am not sure why that was not the case here. It is all
very vague. Calling for a boycott of OK would have made it seem less like
slacktivism.

------
dreamdu5t
I find it insulting to any logical concept of justice that people who _murder_
other people deserve what they willfully deprived of their victims. Nonsense
about forgiveness and "becoming one of them" is just that... nonsense.

Now everyone wants to defend this man's life, a man who _intentionally_ took
the life of another by hiring a hitman. He doesn't deserve life. Why should
the victim's family be obligated to respect the right he willfully deprived
the victim of?

Queue the "because forgiveness herp derp civil society" comments. Spare me. An
eye for an eye does not make those blind who didn't poke someone's eyes out.

If you take a $500 item from me, you owe me $500 not $250. If you take my life
you owe my family my life, instead of being housed, clothed, and fed on my
family's dime.

~~~
zentiggr
THose defending him are doing so because the evidence available almost
certainly indicates that he was convicted solely on the lies of someone under
threat of the death penalty himself.

If he legitimately didn't do what he is almost certainly falsely accused of,
that makes your bloodthirstiness even more uncomfortable and unjust.

Are you comfortable with your judgment to take someone's life on the desperate
accusation of a meth-head avoiding death himself?

~~~
dreamdu5t
Straw man. The innocent are punished for crimes they didn't commit regardless
of the crime or punishment. It's irrelevant to my issue of how the guilty are
to be punished.

~~~
mrsharpoblunto
One key difference being that the death penalty removes the ability for later
appeals and compensation if they are found to be innocent. According to one
study the wrongful conviction rate of prisoners on death row could be around
4.1% [1] - that equates to around 120 innocent people currently being on death
row.

[1] [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-prisoners-
on-...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-prisoners-on-death-row-
are-wrongfully-convicted/)

~~~
dreamdu5t
Why doesn't that argument apply to all punishments? Isn't it better to let the
guilty go free than falsely imprison someone for life? There's more than an
estimated 20,000 innocent in prison who are not on death row. Why are the
innocent good enough to be spared the death penalty but not life in prison?

~~~
alextgordon
If an imprisoned man is later found innocent, you release him.

If an executed man is later found innocent, you can... uh...

~~~
oberstein
Solution: forced cryonics, with elements of Demolition Man thrown in as
desired.

