So, what's the deal with Richard Glossip?

[Razgovory]

How exactly are you judging this?  As far as I know you haven't been imprisoned for a long time or executed before.

[DGuller]

How exactly are you judging this?  As far as I know you haven't been imprisoned for a long time or executed before.

I'm making value judgment.  If you're not sure about someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you should be neither executing the person nor sending them to prison for life.  In our judicial system, we don't determine sentences based on probability of guilt.  We don't go "Well, we usually give 20 years for armed robbery, but since we're only 50% sure you're actually guilty, we'll give you 10 years."

[The Brain]

Is this the travesty of justice many media outlets make it to be, or is this more nuanced?

Here's a good summary:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/09/richard-glossip-and-the-death-penalty/408217/

My very quick take: convictions based on bought testimony are pretty dubious, but the "new evidence" being presented has no merit.  The conviction must either stand or fall on its own.

So you are fine with killing an innocent man because of procedural reasons? Wow.

Innocent from a legal standpoint? Surely even Polish courts don't try to ascertain truth, but rather if the accused is legally responsible or not.

[Razgovory]

How exactly are you judging this?  As far as I know you haven't been imprisoned for a long time or executed before.

I'm making value judgment.  If you're not sure about someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you should be neither executing the person nor sending them to prison for life.  In our judicial system, we don't determine sentences based on probability of guilt.  We don't go "Well, we usually give 20 years for armed robbery, but since we're only 50% sure you're actually guilty, we'll give you 10 years."

Yes, but the idea that being in jail is equivalent to being in jail seems odd.  Most people in prison don't commit suicide and often fight the death penalty. 

[Barrister]

We don't go "Well, we usually give 20 years for armed robbery, but since we're only 50% sure you're actually guilty, we'll give you 10 years."

[The Brain]

How exactly are you judging this?  As far as I know you haven't been imprisoned for a long time or executed before.

I'm making value judgment.  If you're not sure about someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you should be neither executing the person nor sending them to prison for life.  In our judicial system, we don't determine sentences based on probability of guilt.  We don't go "Well, we usually give 20 years for armed robbery, but since we're only 50% sure you're actually guilty, we'll give you 10 years."

Yes, but the idea that being in jail is equivalent to being in jail seems odd.  Most people in prison don't commit suicide and often fight the death penalty.

Extremely odd.

[DGuller]

Yes, but the idea that being in jail is equivalent to being in jail seems odd.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Razgovory]

We don't go "Well, we usually give 20 years for armed robbery, but since we're only 50% sure you're actually guilty, we'll give you 10 years."

Oh, yeah.  I forgot.

[Eddie Teach]

Yes, but the idea that being in jail is equivalent to being in jail seems odd. 

[dps]

I suggest an experiment.  Execute Jaron, and send Timmay to jail for life.  After both sentences have been completed, ask them which was worse.

Oh, wait...

[Fireblade]

Not only is he probably innocent, but Oklahoma is probably going to fuck up the execution and cause him to die slowly and painfully.

Fireblade!

Hamilcar!

I told you guys Oklahoma would figure out a way to fuck it up.

"Hey.. hey Cletus.. them thar protocols say we should use potassium chloride, but all we gots is this damn potassium acetate."
"Well hell Jim Bob, it's all potassium!"

[Ideologue]

I really don't understand why we can't just use a guillotine.  Call it a Freedom Blade or something if you have to.

[viper37]

would it be much less of a tragedy if he were sent to prison for life on exactly the same evidence? 

yes it would.  For two things.
1) Eventually, there may be evidence the surface that would exonerate him and he'd still be alive.  He can be compensated with money for time served.  Eventually, if it costs too much, the State will adopt new practices to convict less innocents.
2) With death penalty and the system of elected prosecutor you have in the US, it becomes a media circus and the da will be tempted to push for death penalty, even if there aren't tons of evidence* because they want to be seen as tough on crime


*I suspect that when there is "a ton" of proofs, there is some plea deal going on to avoid death penalty.

[Barrister]

1) Eventually, there may be evidence the surface that would exonerate him and he'd still be alive.  He can be compensated with money for time served.  Eventually, if it costs too much, the State will adopt new practices to convict less innocents.

It's very unlikely there'd be any evidence that would "exonerate" him.  He's not charged with committing the murder, but rather with hiring the man who did commit the murder.  There's no DNA or forensic evidence that linked him to the murder, nor would there be if he did hire the killer.

As I said: either a conviction based on the word of the real killer who cut a deal to flip on Glossip in exchange for being spared the death penalty, or it isn't.

[Jaron]

I suggest an experiment.  Execute Jaron, and send Timmay to jail for life.  After both sentences have been completed, ask them which was worse.

Oh, wait...

Why me?