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.
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.
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.
> opportunity to determine whether potassium acetate is compliant with the state’s court-approved execution procedures
Kick the can down the road, typical politician. Of course all his appeals have been used unless new evidence is found. Maybe pg could put his money behind that.
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.
"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."
They should show the shadow banned posts by default... they are so light anyways that you can barely see them if you don't highlight them with the mouse
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.
Ya, somehow we think that releasing a falsely imprisoned person after decades is fixing it. We made it right! Well, no, you took away a significant chunk of their life, and likely ruined the rest of it as well.
That doesn't mean, however, that we should give up. We should be more careful about taking away life and freedom, and we should seek to make prison more fulfilling, so that people can have fuller lives when we deem them safe to be let out (because we discovered our error, or because they were rehabilitated).
The problem is complete irreparability. If someone is falsely imprisoned, you can't undo that, but you can free them, pay them some kind of reparations, publicly exonerate them, etc. If someone is found to be wrongfully convicted after death, what do you do? Essentially nothing.
Well, taken to its logical conclusion, this argument supports abolishing jail, prison and all forms of punishment, since the crime is irreparable, therefore there's no point.
But some events are more reparable than others. Releasing a falsely accused man from prison after 20 years doesn't give him those 20 years back, but it gives him back the rest of his life.
And suggesting that because all events are irreparable, all events are thus morally equivalent is morally reprehensible.
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...
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.
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...
In his own presidential campaign in 1992, then-Governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton participated in a similarly odious bit of political theater around an execution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ray_Rector
I'm a Democrat, but on this issue there's more than enough crass opportunism on both sides of the aisle to go around.
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....
Wow. No one understands how to judge probability. The prosecution brings up the lack of fingerprints at the crime scene as evidence of guilt. One can only imagine if there were fingerprints, they'd also contribute to guilt.
Later on, the prosecution notes the lack of violence while in jail as evidence for guilt because "he knows we've listed ... that he will be violent. He's not stupid." So his violence or lack thereof while imprisoned both count towards his guilt. That's just wrong.
On the other side, his story doesn't seem to hold up to much. Not that this is good enough to deal death to him, but one can see where the prosecutor is coming from. The guy admitted to covering up the murder, and there doesn't appear to be any plausible excuse.
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.
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?
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.
I think you're being downvoted because you're assuming PG has only read one side. Perhaps he already read the court papers making its way around the internet or possibly other sources? As far as I could tell he never said what source(s) he read, etc.
Fair enough, he never said what exactly he'd read. But if you're trying to write a persuasive piece, you address the other side's arguments/positions. It's just polemic otherwise.
> But if you're trying to write a persuasive piece, you address the other side's arguments/positions
Twitter's 140 characters don't really give you the space to do to really any of that. It's a great place to blast opinions and occasionally be heard but it's awful for debate or persuasion so most don't try and when you do try...it's just painful.
Actually I quite like it this way. It was a really interesting way to find out about this - Paul Graham's confident assertion raised my curiosity, so I clicked through to this Mary Fallin's twitter and found her latest tweet regarding a Richard Glossip. One search term later and I'm reading The Intercept.
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.
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
The difference is that in court the defendant has an opportunity to put up a fight. If they mount a similarly vigorous defense against a police officer then they're liable to get shot/have additional charges leveled.
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.
> 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.
Death penalty aside, the boss that order to kill people should be given a lighter punishment because he didn't execute the evil action directly? I think he should have an heavier sentence instead.
> I think he should have an heavier sentence instead.
That's quite debatable.
I'm not sure I even believe that the boss who ordered a kill is even guilty of a crime. If his subordinate didn't actually pull a trigger then no crime would be committed. How can one person's crime be a function of another person's actions. It just doesn't compute.
If you take out a murder-for-hire contract on someone else, irrespective of if that contact is carried out, your intent is illegal, immoral, and wrong.
Now our legal system weighs both intent AND consequences. For example someone who hits someone else with their car may get charged with very different crimes depending on if that person lives or dies.
Just to put you in the hot seat for a second, would you yourself want to live in a world where I could take out a contract on your life, and doing so would be entirely legal UNLESS they successfully killed you? Effectively allowing me to take out infinite contracts with complete impunity until you were dead?
> Just to put you in the hot seat for a second, would you yourself want to live in a world where I could take out a contract on your life, and doing so would be entirely legal UNLESS they successfully killed you? Effectively allowing me to take out infinite contracts with complete impunity until you were dead?
Yes because presumably the degenerate who actually pulled the trigger would be punished.
I believe there's only one guilty man in this scenario, and he's the one who pulled the trigger.
> I'm not sure I even believe that the boss who ordered a kill is even guilty of a crime.If his subordinate didn't actually pull a trigger then no crime would be committed.
The second part is incorrect; soliciting murder (or conspiring with another to commit murder; ordering a hit might be either or both depending on specific details) is a crime whether or not the murder actually occurs.
If the murder actually occurs as a result of the solicitation/conspiracy, they are guilty of another and more serious crime, on top of the ones they were already guilty of. But they are guilty of a crime even without that.
> How can one person's crime be a function of another person's actions. It just doesn't compute.
Because in many cases, law is written and operates on the principal that if you take action intended to cause a result, and that does cause that result (whether or not there is an intermediary whose action is necessary), then you are culpable for the legal consequences of intentionally acting to produce that result, since that's exactly what you've done.
Because subordinates may be less qualified to judge whether the action is a crime or not. This would basically place the onus on the lowest level of the hierarchy in determining whether an action is ethically acceptable. People are frequently trained not to question their superiors judgment and to just follow orders. I'm not saying this is right, especially when in some cases the person executing the order may be in a better position to understand the implications, but it puts a conflict between expecting subordinates to second guess every order they're given, which isn't healthy for a well functioning organizational hierarchy. It also puts the person who would otherwise be "just following orders" at risk if they make a misjudgment, discouraging them from disobeying even if they suspect what they're doing is unethical.
> People are frequently trained not to question their superiors judgment and to just follow orders.
Not in this country. In the Uniform Code of Military Justice (which governs the actions of our armed forces) it is a soldier's explicit responsibility to not follow illegal orders.
And if a subordinate is not qualified or capable of determining if his actions are a crime or not (I'm thinking of a hitman, or mob underling), then that doesn't change whether or not he's guilty of the crime.
>I'm not sure I even believe that the boss who ordered a kill is even guilty of a crime. If his subordinate didn't actually pull a trigger then no crime would be committed. How can one person's crime be a function of another person's actions. It just doesn't compute.
You're joking, right? It should be legal to hire a hitman to kill someone? Or convince someone else to burn down my competitor's building? That's madness.
> One of the most crucial aspects of the death penalty is that it is reserved for people that physically kill other human beings.
I disagree with this. It shouldn't matter whether your murder weapon is a baseball bat or a person you've hired, in both cases you're equally guilty. It's similar to the case of a bomber: the fact that they didn't personally perform a violent act, just built a machine, doesn't absolve them of guilt. (For the record, I don't support the death penalty, but I think that murder and hiring a hitman should carry the same penalty).
> making life in prison a far worse punishment than the death penalty
Your second paragraph seems to contradict itself. If life in prison is worse than the death penalty, then the possibility of wrongful convictions should make the death penalty more appealing, since some of those we imprison for life will be innocent.
> the possibility of wrongful convictions should make the death penalty more appealing
Did you really just say that? If someone is locked away and their conviction is overturned, we can always let them out. However, we cannot dig them up after we kill them.
True, but that only matters if their conviction actually does get overturned, which is pretty rare. And even then, if you get exonerated after 30-40 years, most of the damage is already done.
I'm actually trying to disagree with the statement that the death penalty is more humane than life in prison. If you assume that's true, one consequence is that we should prefer to execute innocent people rather than imprison them for life. If you think that conclusion is absurd (like I do), then you should reconsider the original statement.
> There is simply no logical reason to be in favor of the death penalty, at least in the US, but there are plenty of reasons to oppose it.
It is cruel and absolutely horrific to keep a human being in isolation. It is against our nature in every way and people literally lose their minds.
This is a fate worse than death.
So what do you do when an inmate is a clear danger to other inmates? When an inmate has clearly shown that he will murder those who are imprisoned with him?
You have two choices. Isolation or death.
There are other reasons for the death "penalty", but I certainly agree that it should never be used as a penalty, but as a measure of last resort.
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.
> 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?
This is actually not a good argument at all in-favor of the death penalty for this person but rather another great argument for its elimination entirely.
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.
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.
Glossip's first lawyer claims that the police made this up and convinced Sneed to say Glossip hired him. The lawyer says the full interrogation wasn't showed, but a redacted version where the police first prime Sneed then start recording his "good" answers.
It is troubling that there's zero evidence other than the word of a "hitman".
The only evidence he hired anyone is from the testimony of the already convicted murderer in exchange for not going to death row himself. How many people would readily lie to avoid the death penalty, especially when there is no doubt he comitted murder?
(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.
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?
WTF? "No evidence" connecting him to the crime? He admitted to covering up the murder!
There's no evidence that he "masterminded" the crime, but there's still his own admission linking him to the murder.
It seems he's facing the death penalty due to ordering the murder, and that part shouldn't stick because of one person's testimony. But throwing that part out, he wouldn't have been found innocent by anyone.
It is the celebrity opinion fallacy, but its culturally pervasive and harmless when you strongly agree. Actually he's better than Jolie or Damon because his celebrity is from intelligence and good judgment.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
* 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.
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.
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.
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.
In fact I CAN recall a governor who is known for the opposite, which was Dukakis being labelled soft on crime for furloughing Willie Horton. American voters quite consistently indicate they want stricter punishments, and from a politician's viewpoint the risk of freeing someone guilty is the worse alternative.
"Soft on Crime" is a catastrophic label for politicians in the US. This came to the fore recently with Francisco Sanchez, the illegal immigrant who murdered the girl on the pier in SF in July... everyone was outraged that he was let free, he was a "multiple felon" after all.. Except his felonies were all nonviolent, namely entering the country illegally and selling marijuana.
When people express their dissatisfaction with Obama's progress on freeing non-violent criminals, remember how much nuance was granted to those responsible for San Francisco's and California's decisions to show restraint in imprisoning Mr. Sanchez or how much nuance was granted to Dukakis. The teams working on commuting nonviolent Federal sentences spend an enormous amount of time vetting prisoners and are extraordinarily conservative.
It's probably good due diligence, but freeing one Willie Horton or one Francisco Sanchez is enough to severely damage a candidate, a party, or even the concept of criminal justice reform.
Former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is an occasional participant on Reddit, usually promoting either fitness or the after school program charity that he puts a lot of effort into. Easily the most common critical comment of him, that follows him into nearly every thread, is that he reduced the sentence of Esteban Nunez.
Yes, execution does prevent the same person committing more crimes... or any crimes at all in the case of the innocent. Prison also does that, somewhat less effectively, simply by denying them the opportunity, though it's significantly less final and it's not exactly perfect because they could still hurt other guards/inmates, escape, etc.
The real problem with them is whether there are better ways of accomplishing the goal of reducing crime.
It's like: "We'll kill the killers the right way ('humanely', with due process, etc.) so you don't go vigilante and murder them yourselves."
From this angle, assuming no other considerations, the legitimacy of the court system hinges on how often we see revenge killings. One could argue that the U.S. is more civilized now, so discouraging revenge killing is a fairly minor consideration.
Revenge killings are irrelevant. Nobody is saying instead of death penalty we should just free them. They'd be in prison. And if after 30 years someone gets parole, I highly doubt anyone will notice.
There was a questionable execution in Texas in 2004 that's still shows up in the news occasionally[1]. If you are looking for a previous case that might help you guess how much this could be in the news, I'd look there.
It is a story, but Perry won at least one more election after this. It's not the type of thing that will end the career of a governor in a conservative state.
It was a big deal at the time because Clinton deliberately made it a big deal to make a political point in the Presidential campaign.
But, even so, now I don't think its one of the top 20 things most people -- whether they are generally pro- or anti-Clinton -- think about when they think about Bill Clinton, so it doesn't seem to support the "this will be the thing you are known for" idea too well.
>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.
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."
I'm aware of death penalty abolitionists who argue that innocents have been executed. I'm not aware of persuasive evidence. If it were trivial to find some, surely you would have just posted a link instead of an insult.
It takes only a small amount of induction to conclude that given the number of death row exonerations pre-execution, there almost certainly have been innocent persons executed.
If you hold out for conclusive proof, you will probably not find it, as it's a bit of a fool's errand to attempt to exonerate a dead man when you could devote that effort to exonerating one who the state has not yet committed manslaughter upon.
It's not name calling; it means essentially the same thing as: "your claim is predicated on a degree of mistrust of humanity that is not shared by everyone"
A woman was executed last night in the US, even after the Pope asked for clemency.
Indonesia executed a multi-national group of people five months ago.
Saudi Arabia beheaded an Indonesian maid with no legal representation five months ago, a group subject to so much abuse that Indonesia made it illegal to move to Saudi Arabia to become a maid.
In weeks nobody will remember Glossip either, least of all people getting their news from reddit.
In weeks state-sponsored execution will still be a national sport in these countries:
330 exonerations and counting, so #3 isn't always a yes - and there's a likely no on #1 and #2. For #4 and #5 I usually say no - mainly because we can't get 1-3 right.
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 .....
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
Honestly, I don't think that has had the slightest impact on his political career. Those who are appalled by that case would probably not have been voting for Perry in the first place. IMHO the fact is that he made a fool of himself in a previous election cycle when he couldn't speak articulately at a GOP debate (perhaps due to pain medication for a back injury) and that's still what most people remember about him outside of Texas.
There is an unsettling irony in you say that... because... no, he has not incurred political damage for having allowed the execution, he was running as a presidential candidate for goodness' sake. And he probably would have stuck along were it not for the Trump domination.
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.
You're absolutely right but a lot of people do think this way. That regardless of crime or evidence, the state has no authority to take a life.
"Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
Isn't that sort of what a "state" is? In the absence of a state, individual humans would occasionally have to end the lives of other humans, but if one exists it will jealously guard that prerogative for itself.
Are you saying a "state" is just something that jealously guards prerogatives for itself (love that line btw)?
I agree occasionally humans do have to kill other humans because I'm not a pacifist but I think the death penalty isn't to stop a horrible act, because the person is already caught, but to punish.
Various states jealously guard various prerogatives, but the ur-prerogative is violence. The subjects of states without violence will eventually just live how they want to live. The whole point of states was to prevent that.
Actually, it's my impression that a majority of people worldwide are in favor of the death penalty. Two minutes of googling didn't turn up a good answer one way or the other though, so it's entirely possible I'm misremembering something.
Actually, it's my impression that a majority of people worldwide are in favor of the death penalty.
wikipedia: Although many nations have abolished capital punishment, over 60% of the world's population live in countries where executions take place, such as China, India, the United States and Indonesia.[0]
there are 206 countries in the world[1], of which only 36 practise capital punishment. USA comes on the heels of the top five of China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.[2]
questions:
* if majority of people are in favor of the death penalty, where does the majority of countries abstaining from it come from? in vulgar terms: is it an illuminati-level conspiracy?
* do the countries practicing the death penalty share any prevailing traits? do the countries which have abolished it share any prevailing traits? what are they? how do those traits correlate with wealth and wealth distribution in the country?
my impression is that (outside of truly fucked-up places like China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, India, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia) capital punishment de iure is a sign of a country with a huge wealth gradient: the poorer the poor are and the richer the rich are (in contrast) the better the chance the place will have the death penalty. countries with relatively flat wealth distribution seem to be less likely to practice the capital punishment.
Unfortunately, that's not the law, and is a different debate. Articles I've seen (including PG's!) say there's no evidence but the murderer's testimony. Except the guy sentenced to death admitted he had helped hide the murder. The only thing up for debate is if he hired the murderer. It certainly should not be eligible for the death penalty in this case, but he's not innocent.
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."
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.
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.
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?
Have you read through the facts of the case? Glossip did some things that indicated that he knew the victim was dead in the room. There was testimony from others that he was planning on leaving town immediately after being brought in for questioning. And the "hitman" had no real motive for killing the victim, but Glossip did, because of the $6000+ dollars that were missing from the motel over time.
There are far more convincing anti-death-penalty cases than this one.
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.
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.
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?
The victim's family has no say in the matter beyond the indirect proxy of the judicial system. Bringing it up is a red herring, unless we're speaking of vigilantism.
"I have issued a 37 day stay for Richard Glossip while the state addresses questions about its execution protocol"