I use to be pro execution and now I am against it. Primarily because there too many cases like this. No forensic evidence but some eye witness who swears it was them. No thank you. And the jury who found home guilty beyond a reasonable doubt doesn’t understand the phrase.
There is no rational basis to believe that the court will give the lie to the "progressive" view of that court, let alone that it "will soon deal a devastating blow to the death penalty." There is no consensus that Glossip is innocent anywhere that I know of. Here's the oral argument transcript. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/22-7466_m6hn.pdf
I live in McAlester Oklahoma where Glossip and death penalty inmates are held. It is creepy. I am against the death penalty. The gov't should not be involved with murder.
It’s not murder, and the government is always involved in any sort of legal proceeding. The existence of any Westphalian nation state, requires that the leader or ‘ruler’ , however selected, has an absolute monopoly on the legal use of violence inside the state’s borders. This use is delegated to the president and state governors who control the local military and law enforcement. Whitout this power, the state falls to anarchy.
It's all too often handed down without sufficient evidence by juries that have IQs lower than the accused.
But if capital punishment is not ended at the very least the standard to impose it must be set MUCH higher. IMHO, at least two of the following three conditions should be met:
1. Irrefutable and legally obtained physical evidence.
2. An un-coerced confession.
3. Eyewitness testimony given by a witness who has prior knowledge of the accused.
This will hopefully reduce the imposition of such an irreversible sentence to almost zero.
Only an enlightened society would have the family, friends, neighbors, and community of the victim pay for the lifetime room, board, and recreation of his killer.
This is an extremely misleading article. There is no question as to Glossip's guilt, only whether the handyman was prescribed lithium by a regular doctor or a psychiatrist. It is not a question relevant to whether or not Glossip paid the guy to murder.
"But in Oklahoma, the governor can commute a death sentence only if the state’s Pardon and Parole Board gives the okay—and the board has refused to do that."
Aside from the details of this particular case, it’s interesting that people who believe individuals have the right to terminate the life of an innocent fetus can’t accept the right of society to recycle the corpus of heinous criminals.
Kind of reminds me of how Kamala Harris fought hard to prevent Kevin Cooper from receiving a stay of his execution in order to allow for DNA testing that would either confirm or disprove his presence at the crime scene.
I personally oppose the death penalty, largely because I know how capricious our criminal justice system is, where many innocents are convicted and many guilty are freed. But if we are to have a death penalty, then we have to make absolutely certain that the person in question is guilty. (And I'd say the same for long-term sentences as well). There just has to be a huge bar to clear before you can take someone's life away, whether by executing them or confining them to prison for most or all of the remainder of their lives.
Many prosecutors, such as Kamala, simply do not care about the actual innocence or guilt of the person they are prosecuting, and simply want a notch in their belt. And many families of victims, ironically, feel similarly, because they want closure, and evidence that the wrong person was punished destroys that closure. This is a big problem, and really needs to be addressed.
And if he is? How can you be so sure, when the main witness, whose credibility and character at the time of the crime and the trial appears suspect, and who later recanted? Is it because of fear that "if they prevail, Glossip will get a new trial that will almost certainly lead to his acquittal and could prove deeply embarrassing to prosecutors and the District Attorneys Council, which represents Oklahoma’s twenty-seven elected district attorneys"? That's a very poor reason to put a man to death. Let there be a retrial, maybe he will be found not guilty, maybe not.
Our justice system is imperfect and often times compromised by wrong doing. The death penalty is antiquated and needs to go away. It's nothing more than satisfying the need for vengeance.
Just to be clear, this is not a question of "reasonable doubt" about the verdict. That is not what SCOTUS will be focusing on. It is a question of whether there was a Brady violation and, if there was, whether it was significant enough to require retrial. Thus, SCOTUS will not be re-weighing the evidence regardless of what the decision is.
Glossip is gaming the system which actually worked. Read the details of the 2023 review. The competence of Sneed was not compromised by lithium and there was corroborating evidence. The contention that the conviction rested solely on the testimony of an incompetent witness who did the killing and then blamed it on his boss is BS.
I use to be pro execution and now I am against it. Primarily because there too many cases like this. No forensic evidence but some eye witness who swears it was them. No thank you. And the jury who found home guilty beyond a reasonable doubt doesn’t understand the phrase.
There is no rational basis to believe that the court will give the lie to the "progressive" view of that court, let alone that it "will soon deal a devastating blow to the death penalty." There is no consensus that Glossip is innocent anywhere that I know of. Here's the oral argument transcript. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/22-7466_m6hn.pdf
I live in McAlester Oklahoma where Glossip and death penalty inmates are held. It is creepy. I am against the death penalty. The gov't should not be involved with murder.
It’s not murder, and the government is always involved in any sort of legal proceeding. The existence of any Westphalian nation state, requires that the leader or ‘ruler’ , however selected, has an absolute monopoly on the legal use of violence inside the state’s borders. This use is delegated to the president and state governors who control the local military and law enforcement. Whitout this power, the state falls to anarchy.
I used to be pro-death penalty. But not anymore.
It is a costly waste of time and money.
It's all too often handed down without sufficient evidence by juries that have IQs lower than the accused.
But if capital punishment is not ended at the very least the standard to impose it must be set MUCH higher. IMHO, at least two of the following three conditions should be met:
1. Irrefutable and legally obtained physical evidence.
2. An un-coerced confession.
3. Eyewitness testimony given by a witness who has prior knowledge of the accused.
This will hopefully reduce the imposition of such an irreversible sentence to almost zero.
I would strike #3. I don’t like eye witnesses because they have been proven to be unreliable.
I can make the same argument about elections in the US. It just occured to me, not really relevant.
They are not even remotely equivalent.
But it's nice that you know your response is not really relevant.
Only an enlightened society would have the family, friends, neighbors, and community of the victim pay for the lifetime room, board, and recreation of his killer.
There was no forensic evidence. I never want to be judged by a jury of my peers. If one person is wrongfully executed it is too many.
This is an extremely misleading article. There is no question as to Glossip's guilt, only whether the handyman was prescribed lithium by a regular doctor or a psychiatrist. It is not a question relevant to whether or not Glossip paid the guy to murder.
"But in Oklahoma, the governor can commute a death sentence only if the state’s Pardon and Parole Board gives the okay—and the board has refused to do that."
Here's a quick fix...change that.
The issue here is less about the sentence and much more about how we have to go about getting the question correct: "Did this person do this thing?"
The death penalty certainly brings this into sharper focus; but decades in solitary confinement is only marginally a less morally egregious option.
So funny that the only thing people think the U.S. government can do correctly is "execute guilty people."
Aside from the details of this particular case, it’s interesting that people who believe individuals have the right to terminate the life of an innocent fetus can’t accept the right of society to recycle the corpus of heinous criminals.
Kind of reminds me of how Kamala Harris fought hard to prevent Kevin Cooper from receiving a stay of his execution in order to allow for DNA testing that would either confirm or disprove his presence at the crime scene.
I personally oppose the death penalty, largely because I know how capricious our criminal justice system is, where many innocents are convicted and many guilty are freed. But if we are to have a death penalty, then we have to make absolutely certain that the person in question is guilty. (And I'd say the same for long-term sentences as well). There just has to be a huge bar to clear before you can take someone's life away, whether by executing them or confining them to prison for most or all of the remainder of their lives.
Many prosecutors, such as Kamala, simply do not care about the actual innocence or guilt of the person they are prosecuting, and simply want a notch in their belt. And many families of victims, ironically, feel similarly, because they want closure, and evidence that the wrong person was punished destroys that closure. This is a big problem, and really needs to be addressed.
Whether the man deserves execution or not, is certainly up for debate, but he is not innocent.
Based on….
And if he is? How can you be so sure, when the main witness, whose credibility and character at the time of the crime and the trial appears suspect, and who later recanted? Is it because of fear that "if they prevail, Glossip will get a new trial that will almost certainly lead to his acquittal and could prove deeply embarrassing to prosecutors and the District Attorneys Council, which represents Oklahoma’s twenty-seven elected district attorneys"? That's a very poor reason to put a man to death. Let there be a retrial, maybe he will be found not guilty, maybe not.
Our justice system is imperfect and often times compromised by wrong doing. The death penalty is antiquated and needs to go away. It's nothing more than satisfying the need for vengeance.
In any case, it does seem there is “reasonable doubt” which should preclude a conviction; certainly a one carrying a penalty of death.
Just to be clear, this is not a question of "reasonable doubt" about the verdict. That is not what SCOTUS will be focusing on. It is a question of whether there was a Brady violation and, if there was, whether it was significant enough to require retrial. Thus, SCOTUS will not be re-weighing the evidence regardless of what the decision is.
Glossip is gaming the system which actually worked. Read the details of the 2023 review. The competence of Sneed was not compromised by lithium and there was corroborating evidence. The contention that the conviction rested solely on the testimony of an incompetent witness who did the killing and then blamed it on his boss is BS.
https://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/court-of-appeals-criminal/2023/d-2005-310.html#:~:text=%C2%B61%20Petitioner%2C%20Richard%20Eugene%20Glossip%2C%20was%20convicted%20of,with%20the%20jury%20verdict%20on%20August%2027%2C%202004.
So what?