13 ms·

The Case of Richard Glossip

• kylec 11y ago
  Very well written. I'm glad to see pg writing about things other than startups again.
• nichochar 11y ago
  This is important, the "greatest country in the world" has to do better with things like this. As pg very well says, you cannot have human lives depend on other human's lack of rigor, stupidity and incompetence
• raonyguimaraes 11y ago
  I agree, you should not have death penalty in US, specially without any physical evidence. This is a broken system and it should be fixed!
• DubiousPusher 11y ago
  "Might Sneed have lied to save his own skin? Reasonable doubt? Nothing is more likely." And nothing more need be said. I don't understand how it seems impossible to force into people's heads the two notions that the burden of guilt lay with the prosecution and that guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
• peterwwillis 11y ago
  I upvoted this mainly because I think it's healthy that people consider the ethics by which they and their fellow citizens live. But generally speaking, this is a stupid reason not to kill someone. The DA basically told this guy point-blank that if you don't want to die, take this deal. If you do want to die, don't take the deal. He chose not to take the deal. Is there a chance that "good sense" could have prevailed, and that by some fluke, some part of the system wouldn't work, and so he would be saved from the death penalty? Maybe. But if he had taken the deal, he would definitely not have died. This guy chose to play russian roulette with a six-shooter with five bullets in it and lost. And this is the reason we shouldn't kill people? Because a guy who can't do the basic math of "which choice is more likely to end in my death" chose poorly? No. The guy should have taken the deal. Much like the rest of the people on the planet who choose to take huge risks with their life, he's going to lose out on this bet. And that has nothing to do with why we should stop the state from killing people. Our system of justice is based on laws and rules. They can't be broken arbitrarily, which is why innocent people are put to death. Not because we're mean. Not because we're stupid. We make the rules, and we have to enforce them. In this case, one of our rules is, if you do X, you die. So, if you don't believe in killing innocent people, by all means, get rid of that rule. But don't tell me we should get rid of the rule because the rules weren't perfect.
  • epmatsw 11y ago
    If he's innocent, he chose to not go to jail for life for a crime he didn't commit. People shouldn't have to accept unjust punishment to avoid other people's ignorance/laziness/incompetence/half-assedness.
  • gohrt 11y ago
    1. That is blaming the victim. 2. Telling someone that I intend to kill them, means that is would be stupid to not kill them?
  • URSpider94 11y ago
    So, if I'm innocent, I should take a plea bargain (which, let's not forget, involves me standing up before God and everyone and saying, "yes, I did it," so that I can spend the rest of my life in a maximum security penitentiary, so that I can avoid being put to death? Not sure I agree with your logic there.
    • peterwwillis 11y ago
      Here's a diagram of the logic. Do you want to die? Y -> Reject offer. -> Death penalty. N -> Accept offer. -> Life in prison. I don't know how I could simplify this further.
      • gizmo 11y ago
        Life isn't just about cold pragmatism. Sometimes you have to stand up for you believe is right, especially when the odds aren't in your favor.
      • wutwatt 11y ago
        Why would anyone ask an innocent person if he wants to die? Your premise is faulty.
      • lotharbot 11y ago
        Here's a simpler diagram: did you do it? Y -> address "do you want to die" question N -> "I don't deserve to either die or spend my life in prison" -> rely on the justice system to do the right thing
• msabalau 11y ago
  It's increasingly seems that the powers of prosecutors are deployed in arbitrary and unjust ways: either overreaching (as in the case of Aaron Swartz or Xiaoxing Xi) or non-prosecution of police brutality or corporate crime (just changing now that the statute of limitations run out on those responsible for the 2008 financial crisis) It's not clear what can be done about it, other than occasionally writing a check to the ACLU to help limit the damage. Any ideas?
  • cbsmith 11y ago
    Keep in mind that you're survey of examples is likely biased by what makes a good story... and journalists have become very good at figuring out which cases will make a good story. It's a problem that there is enough material to keep the stories coming, but let's not conclude that the stories we read about represent the bulk of the justice system's operations.
    • DubiousPusher 11y ago
      Agreed. "Fixing criminal justice," is a vague if noble goal. I think it's pretty clear at this point however that the standard of evidence is too low. And out of the humility wrought by the awareness of our own fallibility, perhaps we should stray from punishments as final as death.
    • TillE 11y ago
      The fact that the egregious examples exist is proof enough of the insanity and incompetence that's permitted by the justice system. The appeals processes seems too restrictive to allow for proper review in many cases. Just because a system has existed for a long time doesn't mean it's ideal in any way. The murder of Meredith Kercher is another prominent example in another country. All evidence pointed to one murderer, who was duly convicted. And then the state decided to spend years prosecuting two innocent people based on some odd behavior and not the slightest shred of credible physical evidence. They're just lucky they finally got a sane judge at the highest level.
      • cbsmith 11y ago
• epmatsw 11y ago
  Seems like the real issue is that Oklahoma is not giving the guy a fair trial. While the finality of the death penalty makes it (or at least makes it seem) worse, it would/could be just as unfair to throw the guy in jail for life without giving him his due process.
  • vas1 11y ago
    I agree with this sentiment, would the death penalty be fine with people assuming it can be proven that somebody is 100% guilty?
  • NhanH 11y ago
    There will always be mistakes and wrongful processes in any kind of system, the difference between death penalty and life sentence is the finality of the former: there is also some very small chance that you can be proven innocent a few years down the road (we're all taking about extremes here).
  • jsudhams 11y ago
    I agree based on what i know, India is the best when it comes to giving chance to the folks to trial multiple times. And while high courts (highest in states) can give sentence that could be overturned in supreme court. Can he not apply to USA supreme court or equivalent of that?
• Arainach 11y ago
  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/us/richard-glossip-execution-oklahoma.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/us/richard-glossip-executi... gives more details about how the case has proceeded thus far. From the description of the "evidence", this seems like a clear cut failure of the justice system.
  • acqq 11y ago
    See also: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/09/28/oklahoma-court-denies-richard-glossips-request-for-a-stay-of-execution/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/09/2... "When the order delaying the execution for two weeks came down, Glossip was so close to his scheduled execution time that he had already been served his final meal (which included chicken-fried steak, mashed potatoes, fish and chips and a strawberry malt). In addition to their requests to the Oklahoma court, Glossip’s attorneys had also asked Gov. Mary Fallin (R) to stay the execution, arguing that the lethal injection should be halted due to new evidence. However, Fallin denied these requests, and she said her office determined that none of the evidence presented by Glossip’s attorneys changed her mind. “After carefully reviewing the facts of this case multiple times, I see no reason to cast doubt on the guilty verdict reached by the jury or to delay Glossip’s sentence of death,” she said in a statement earlier this month. Fallin also said her office would respect the appeals court’s decision."
• johnnyg 11y ago
  RE: How people are and the death penalty The other day I was driving down the road and thinking about how people are. It was 33 years coming but here's what hit me: people do what they want, even in the face of devastating consequences. See that long line outside any burger joint? See the stats on the amount of hard drugs guaranteed to destroy your world we consume? See that person cheating? See that DA wanting a win? If you want a burger, a high, an orgasm or a conviction, you generally will get it at some price that's ultimately...above market. How much more prone to excess is someone in the heat of a moment? How unlike the event does its moment by moment reconstruction during a trial appear? The mismatch has always struck me as unjust. As people judging an event whose experience they haven't had and haven't attempted to recreate. Though a jury is a good idea and the best we've got, the process they run through seems ripe for reform. An eye for an eye has its place. If you walk into a school, start shooting and are captured alive - I think you just forfeited any claim on life or potential rehabilitation. Any shade of grey zooming out from that seems too hard for any government system to decide well. I hear people say things in passing like "he only got 20 years". 20 years is a huge and devastating amount of time, as is one year. As we've ramped up the time on these sentences and made it an all or nothing proposition. Unfortunately, I don't think 20 years will do it if 1 year hasn't and I don't think death will do it if 20 years hasn't. Regarding Richard Glossip. I don't know him or his case. I don't know the victim and while they won't return, there's a debt owed that I don't know how to pay. I want Richard Glossip to live. I don't think taking another life will pay the debt of the first. What I want most of all is for someone to tell me how to pay that debt.
  • verbin217 11y ago
    "If you walk into a school, start shooting and are captured alive - I think you just forfeited any claim on life or potential rehabilitation." Unfortunately most of the people who do this are children. They're usually in situations people would rather ignore. They're desperate. They want attention and they get it at some price that's ultimately... above market.
    • eric_the_read 11y ago
      According to http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-m... the average age of mass shooters in general is 35.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  • dang 11y ago
    > not sure why this is on topic Obviously pg's writings are favorites of the community here, but if you look back through the history of HN you'll find that right from the beginning there were selected political stories that were on topic. Is there a precise criterion? Nope. But as pg once said, note those words most and probably. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922426.
    • deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
• rottencupcakes 11y ago
  In general, human testimony is one of the weakest forms of evidence we have. People, even when they don't have incentive to lie, have horrible memories! It should barely be admissible, let alone for first degree murder, especially in cases like this where the witness is being bribed for his testimony.
  • justin_vanw 11y ago
    You don't need CSI to convict someone of murder. In this case: Means: he knew the person who committed the physical attack and had influence over this person Motive: the victim was accusing him of embezzling $6000 Opportunity: plenty Proof defendant actually acted on the motive: he attempted to hide the body from discovery, helped hide the victims car, contributed to a conspiracy to cut the body up and dissolve it in acid, split the money from the victim's wallet with the other man involved, and made sure that cleaning staff that he managed were reassigned so that they would not find the body. None of this is in dispute! This is by itself enough to convict him.
    • jessaustin 11y ago
      Wow I'm surprised that we're only talking about $6000. Maybe this is a privileged reaction, but in USA is that sum worth all the trouble of even a "successful" murder, let alone the calamity this turned out to be? Morality helps morons more than it helps rational people. A rational person would realize that a disagreement over $6000 will be much less hassle over the long term than a murder conspiracy. Someone to whom that is not obvious, and who also lacks enough moral sense not to murder in such a situation, really is a threat to the public. Maybe we shouldn't kill him, and maybe a long prison sentence isn't the best answer, but at the very least the public ought to be warned that this guy is completely irrational and might decide to murder for no good reason at all.
• gizmo 11y ago
  I encourage everybody to read up on the horrors of how the death penalty functions in practice. Especially in combination with the plea-bargain system, that effectively robs > 95% of suspects from their constitutional right to a fair trial. Finally -- and I know this is only a minor point in comparison -- it's worth noting that pg doesn't have anything to gain by writing this, and people who stick their neck out by writing about political issues inevitably get shouted at. Soon enough publishing anything stops being worth the aggravation. So credit goes to pg for standing up and speaking out, when it's all too easy to be silent.
  • pdabbadabba 11y ago
    > I encourage everybody to read up on the horrors of how the death penalty functions in practice. Especially in combination with the plea-bargain system, that effectively robs > 95% of suspects from their constitutional right to a fair trial. What do you mean by "in combination with," here? If you mean that the death penalty is used to convince people to plead guilty, I'm with you. But if you're saying that a large number of people who are sentenced to death were pressured into pleading guilty, then I am skeptical, since it is unclear what the defendant is receiving in exchange for the plea. (Usually it is a lighter sentence...)
    • mikeyouse 11y ago
      I read his post as the death penalty can be a bludgeon that prosecuting attorneys will wield to get many more plea bargains from people accused of serious crimes. Pleading out to lesser offenses still with decades in prison is a much different calculation for the accused if the alternative is a trial with a death penalty vs. a trial with another decade or two on the end.
      • Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        Plea bargains are a very core corruption of our justice system and should be outright banned in every shape and form. Everyone who has ever accepted a plea should have all punishments immediately ended (and any penalties accrued while in prison just for a plea), but prosecutors would be allowed to bring trials up against anyone freed to sentence them to their time served (the overload in cases would force them to prioritize on only the worse offenders who probably did do it while those who were forced to take a plea on dubious grounds would be ignored and left to live their lives). And this would include compensation for all those who have been imprisoned over a plea deal. In short, every plea deal should be considered a grave injustice that needs to be corrected. Of course, it will never happen.
• Alex3917 11y ago
  The crazy thing is that although salient, of all the ways the US government kills innocent people, the death penalty probably has one of the lowest total body counts. At least in comparison with wars of aggression, foreign coups, the war on drugs, subsidizing cars, subsidizing fossil fuels, subsidizing tobacco, weak pharma regulation, promoting antibiotics in food, cop shootings, fast food subsidies (via corn), not implementing cap & trade to combat climate change, privatized health insurance, trade embargoes, promoting harmful nutrition guidelines, lack of food safety standards/inspection, lack of any required safety testing for new chemicals, etc.
  • striking 11y ago
    They also burn an absolutely astronomical amount of money in the process of trying to kill these people.
  • philwelch 11y ago
    It seems almost pointless to even have a formal death penalty when law enforcement officers are given effective blanket immunity against homicide charges.
    • tsotha 11y ago
      That's not true. They officer who shot Walter Scott has been charged with murder.
      • philwelch 11y ago
        One officer charged out of hundreds of Americans killed by police every year. Statistically, that's still effective blanket immunity.
        • tsotha 11y ago
          You can't know that without knowing how many would have been charged had they not been police officers.
• ChicagoBoy11 11y ago
  One thing to consider is that this case (and the 4%) figure refer to those who've been sentenced to death, where the standards for prosecution and sentencing are the absolute highest. It would only be natural to suspect that this figure is even greater the less the sentence/crime. Until we carefully scrutinize the incentives facing the judicial system as a whole (and see how unbalanced it is), this is bound to be the norm.
• lazyant 11y ago
  Appalled that people are killed legally based only on a criminal's word. Also appalled that we still have the death penalty in some countries, these are pretty much all backwards countries with the outliers of US and Japan; it's a litmus test for humans rights imho.
  • plaguuuuuu 11y ago
    Define backwards? Singapore has the death penalty. Taiwan has the death penalty. Singapore is probably the most advanced economy in the world. one of Taiwan's main exports is computer engineering R&D for most of the hardware in your PC (as the hardware itself is now manufactured and assembled in China) Taiwan has nationalised health care - score 1 for Taiwan over the US. I consider any country implementing the death penalty to be a cultural backwater. Many parts of the US are basically the definition of a cultural backwater anyway.
    • jamez1 11y ago
      Technology/Economy has nothing to do with how backwards/progressive a country is.
      • tsotha 11y ago
        Not everyone agrees on what constitutes progress.
    • rhizome 11y ago
      I'm sure there are some critiques that can be raised as to methodology, but just as a point of conversation you may be interested in the World Happiness Report, on which none of those countries rate higher than the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report
• aashaykumar92 11y ago
  A solution is to build a platform that crowdsources such cases to raise awareness AND a call for action. The community would need to be unbelievable but it's not at all impossible. Once there are 100,000 signatures on any petition under 30 days, the White House guarantees a response. There are many great communities with more than 100,000 active users. Why not?
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • tdylan 11y ago
    As bad as this situation is, Internet mob justice has a terrible track record and is not the solution. Most recent example is Ahmed the 'inventor'.
    • jessaustin 11y ago
      Do you intend to suggest that Ahmed should have gone to jail, and that the teachers, administrators, cops, and prosecutors who tried to send him there were somehow wronged by the "Internet mob"? 'Cause that would be silly...
      • tdylan 11y ago
        Absolutely not. Sending a kid to jail because he brought a clock to school is silly. However, a kid who bought a clock from the 80s, than repackaged it in a pencil box claiming it his 'invention', and put a timer on it making it beep in class, who was then evasive when answering questions, on the day after 9/11 anniversary, definitely deserves some suspicion. What I object to is the praise he's gotten, from Obama to Zuckerberg. Without even one look at the facts of the situation.
• mrdrozdov 11y ago
  Vice released a special last night about mass incarceration related to non-violent drug crimes. It included President Obama visiting a federal prison and interviews with Former Atty. Gen. Eric Holder. Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjWSW94-P3Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjWSW94-P3Y Article: https://news.vice.com/article/president-obama-heads-to-prison-in-pursuit-of-criminal-justice-reform https://news.vice.com/article/president-obama-heads-to-priso...
  • voltagex_ 11y ago
    I don't always agree with the content / viewpoints that Vice puts out, but this was one of the most well made and powerful documentaries I've seen in a while. I'd like to think that President Obama's reactions were genuine and that things might slowly start to change in the US.
    • jessaustin 11y ago
      A "genuine" president would have issued hundreds of thousands of pardons for drug "crimes" by this point in his presidency. Obama is just another politician.
      • voltagex_ 11y ago
        Is there any precedent for anything like that?
        • jessaustin 11y ago
          Andrew Johnson pardoned everyone who fought for the Confederacy, other than Jeff Davis and a few other bigwigs. Sure, armed insurrection is a less serious crime than getting high, but I think the precedent stands.
          • jessaustin 11y ago
            Strictly speaking however "precedent" doesn't apply to pardons since they are a power specifically granted the president by Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Precedents are important in courts, so if e.g. the Supreme Court had previously ruled that pardoning pot smokers is unconstitutional then that precedent would be relevant. My impression is that the courts don't want to touch pardons, which is only right, since the point of putting them in the Constitution was to give the executive the ability to rein in the vindictiveness of the legislative and judicial branches. I expect that if Congress passed a law attempting to restrict the use of pardons, even the most conservative jurist would toss that shit right out of court.
• csomar 11y ago
  I live in a country with a terrible human rights record. Yet, since 1991, it never had a death penalty applied. [1] You might get sentenced to a death penalty (on extreme cases), but it's not applied. The law still legalise it but there is some pressure to remove it currently. I find the news that 1) a death penalty is about to take place in the U.S, 2) hastily and 3) with little evidence really shocking, disturbing and unacceptable in a country which is supposed to be at the front of defending human rights. 1: http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-search-post.cfm?country=Tunisia http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-search-post.cfm...
  • joesmo 11y ago
    The US is most certainly not at the forefront of defending human rights if by that you mean actual action to stop abuses rather than mere lip service. Our prison system is an atrocious human rights disaster. Our justice system is effectively non-existent and almost 100% based on forced plea bargains (this case being an unusual exception that actually went to trial). Guantanamo Bay. Abu Ghraib. And that's just in the last decade. If you look at reality, you'll see that the US is full of human rights abuses, almost all preventable. And as far as the prison system, well it's by far the worst in the world.
  • tsotha 11y ago
    Your country sounds like California. We have almost 750 inmates on death row and I'll be surprised if a single one gets executed.
• lpolovets 11y ago
  An excellent book about another death row inmate (who was eventually exonerated): http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Time-18-Year-Odyssey-Freedom/dp/1602399743/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0 http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Time-18-Year-Odyssey-Freedom/d... The level of corruption/manipulation/etc. in some of these death row cases is very frightening.
• javajosh 11y ago
  I'd like to examine the perverse incentives behind prosecutors going for the throat. Wouldn't this problem effectively disappear if prosecutors were ranked on "wisdom" and "mercy" instead of how badly (and cheaply) they crush someone who makes even the smallest mistake through a plea deal?
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• gautamnarula 11y ago
  PG, thanks for writing about this and bringing both this case and the death penalty to readers' attention. Richard Glossip's case is similar in many ways to Troy Davis[1]. You may recognize that name--in 2011, when he was executed, he was the world's most famous death row inmate. Like Glossip, Troy Davis had no physical evidence against him. His conviction (of murdering a police officer) was based primarily on 9 eyewitness testimonies. SEVEN of those eyewitnesses recanted or altered their testimonies, many citing police coercion or intimidation. Ten new witnesses came forward saying one of the two non-recanting witnesses, Sylvester Coles, confessed to the murder. A few days before he was executed, ONE MILLION people signed a petition to the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles. Despite this, and the many doubts in his case, Troy Davis was executed on September 21, 2011. I was close friends with Troy--I first visited him on death row in 2008 (when I was 15), and spent the next three years visiting him, corresponding with him, and talking to him on the phone. Troy was so well-known because his case epitomized everything that is wrong with the American justice system and the death penalty--racial bias (he was a black man accused of killing a white cop in 1980s Georgia), an overzealous DA with a history of prosecutorial misconduct, police coercion and witness tampering, the execution of innocents (over a dozen death row inmates have been exonerated since he was executed in 2011...how many innocents were executed in that time?) and a justice system so rigid and brittle that it would not even commute his sentence to life imprisonment, despite even a federal judge admitting Troy had shown at least a "minimal" level of doubt in his case. Troy's last words, recorded minutes before he was executed, are haunting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98dlGv0k2MM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98dlGv0k2MM In 2012, I raised 11k on Kickstarter to write a book on my relationship with Troy Davis called Remain Free[2]. It talks about many of the ugly aspects of his life on death row and of the legal corruption in his case that he (and I) couldn't publicly talk about while he was still alive. Since the book is built on hundreds of recorded conversations, in person visits, and letters with Troy, you really get a sense of who he was as a person and the kind of toll two decades on death row takes on him and his family. If you'd like a copy, you can order it on Amazon[3] or through http://remainfree.com http://remainfree.com. All profits go to the Innocence Project [4], a non-profit that works to free wrongfully convicted individuals through DNA testing. Alternatively, email me (gautamnarula[at]gmail.com) a screenshot of a $10 donation to the Innocence Project, and I'll send you the e-book for free. Donate $20 to the Innocence Project, and I'll send you a physical copy for just the cost of shipping ($3 in the US). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Davis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Davis [2] http://remainfree.com http://remainfree.com [3] http://www.amazon.com/Remain-Free-Memoir-Gautam-Narula/dp/0984547819 http://www.amazon.com/Remain-Free-Memoir-Gautam-Narula/dp/09... [4] http://innocenceproject.org http://innocenceproject.org
• barney54 11y ago
  I support the death penalty, but I believe all executions should be carried out Ned Stark style. As in, if you are the Governor, and can commute the sentence, then you should be there and actually carry out the execution. If you can save a person's life, you owe it to them and society to bear the responsibility of not commuting the sentence and see what death looks like.
  • peeters 11y ago
    Why put the governor on the hook, but not the majority of Americans who support the death penalty? If tomorrow 75% of Americans disagreed with the death penalty, it would be abolished. It's not your politicians who are keeping the death penalty, it is your citizens.
    • danieltillett 11y ago
      This is a pretty reasonable suggestion. The jury that sentences a convict to death has to actually carry out the sentence. I suspect that the number of strong supporters of the death penalty will drop dramatically when faced with having to perform the sentence with their own hands.
      • jessaustin 11y ago
        I sat voir dire for the trial of an accused child molester. I'm sure at least some of the venom displayed that morning was cynical, in order to get out of serving on the jury. Significant numbers of people, however, didn't strike me as intelligent enough to be cynical. So, I would say there are some crimes that would have no shortage of jurors willing to swing the ax themselves.
  • philwelch 11y ago
    At the very least, it would make it that much harder for some governors to be elected President.
• flippyhead 11y ago
  I recently read a book that makes this same case very strongly: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JYWVYLY http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JYWVYLY I was incredibly eye-opening how common this kind of thing is. It makes me sick.
• zatkin 11y ago
  If you think about it, death vs life in prison is pretty imbalanced. On one hand, you can either die immediately and escape from it all (that being the case), while on the other hand you're stuck in a cell for the rest of your life, living with your thoughts, away from the rest of society. Personally, if I had to choose, I would choose death, since it's quick and easy, and I won't have to suffer through my own thoughts on a day to day basis.
• ianbicking 11y ago
  So maybe 4% of people who get the death penalty are innocent. And some other portion probably don't deserve the death penalty according to the criteria we've established. So we get rid of it, and then what? They all get life without parole? How much better is that? And what about all the innocent people who are receiving that punishment right now? Or who are losing 5 or 10 years of their life? Getting justice right is tremendously important. The death penalty is something people can line up around without truly engaging with the justice system at all. It feels like a huge distraction to me. We use the phrase "paying your debt to society" but no one pays any debts. They only incur debts. Debts to their family who they can't support. Debts to a society that ends up weaker than it started. The cruelty of this system isn't best exemplified in the death penalty.
  • late2part 11y ago
    How much better is life without parole than death? By almost all measures, it's much better.
• falsestprophet 11y ago
  If Richard Glossip wasn't sentenced to death, he would likely have languished in prison as long as he lived. That would also be a horrible injustice. People see more motivated by orders of magnitude to get death penalty cases right relative to life incarceration cases. Counterintuitively, justice may be better served by abolishing life imprisonment and mandating the death penalty for cases where periods of imprisonment would exceed 20 years or so. If the innocence rate for executions is 4%, then surely the innocence rate for long term incarceration must be much higher.
  • kjs3 11y ago
    20 year olds commit heinous crimes, too. They might have a somewhat different opinion that you do.
  • rhizome 11y ago
    This is essentially removing the right of appeal for certain classes of cases, and combined with mandatory minimums would bring us back to the age of hanging judges.
  • efuquen 11y ago
    > Counterintuitively, justice may be better served by abolishing life imprisonment and mandating the death penalty for cases where periods of imprisonment would exceed 20 years or so. I've seen several people already share this sentiment and it really confuses me. Because 1) It's made by people who have never, and come from a background where they most likely never would, have to seriously make such a choice. (If I'm wrong let me know). 2) I would venture if you really were faced with such a choice it would not be the automatic "kill me if I get more then 20 years" one that you flippantly imply you would make. I have a feeling when faced with the actual prospects of death vs imprisonment of 20 years or more, rather then on some hypothetical situation in an internet forum, you might decide differently. 3) Even if it was the case you were to decide death over long term imprisonment, what would give you, or the justice system, the right to decide that for anyone else facing that situation? I have a feeling most people would still choose life, even if faced with perpetual imprisonment, over death. And finally lets just assume Richard Glossip was unjustly found guilty of this crime, I know nothing about this case so lets just assume. The problem isn't specifically with the sentence but the fact that he is in fact not guilty, but was deemed guilty by his peers. By killing him you eliminate any possibility of recourse, he already paid the ultimate price. At least with life imprisonment there is still a chance for having some just conclusion, even if it's late and inadequate to the penalty he suffered.
• mrtron 11y ago
  You can argue against the death penalty a thousands ways. It is statistically racist, it is against the Christian way which is supposedly important in America, there is little reason to kill someone when you can securely lock them away indefinitely. I don't see how you can argue for the death penalty. Killing people doesn't help anyone. Who has lived a happy and healthy life as a result of a death row execution of someone with a life sentence?
  • verbin217 11y ago
    In my experience Christian's seem very supportive of the death penalty.
    • lotharbot 11y ago
      http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss10 http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss10 (2010) and http://sda.berkeley.edu/sdaweb/analysis/?dataset=gss14 http://sda.berkeley.edu/sdaweb/analysis/?dataset=gss14 (2014) are huge data sets on peoples' demographics and opinions. Run the table "CAPPUN" vs "RELIG". Nearly every major religious position in the US (including atheist/agnostic/none) is largely in favor of the death penalty, with only Muslims and Native Americans coming out as more than 50% opposed in both sets, and "other eastern" being over 50% in the newer set. Also of note: whites are much more in favor of the death penalty than other races, Republicans are slightly more in favor than Democrats, people with higher incomes are more in favor than those with lower incomes, and people with average education (high school or 2-year college) are more in favor than those with either very high or very low education. (I'm from a religious subgroup that's anti-death-penalty, anti-war, pro-life, etc. and I would argue that the death penalty isn't consistent with a Christian ethic, but plenty of people obviously disagree with me.)
      • verbin217 11y ago
        Thank you for posting this. All of it was super interesting. Also thank you for your assuredly thankless service as both a rational and faithful person.
• thrownaway2424 11y ago
  One of the most distasteful aspects of this case has been the way the Daily Oklahoman, the local newspaper, has been demanding the man's death every day, in effect reprinting the Attorney General's press releases as news and editorial columns. I point to "AG's office calls witnesses in Glossip innocence claim 'inherently suspect'" and "Glossip attorneys cross line with criticism of DA". The Daily Oklahoman is a journalistic embarrassment on every topic but in the case of Glossip it has really shone an unintentional light on bloodlust in the state.
• splat 11y ago
  I highly recommend anyone interested in this to read the article Criminal Law 2.0 by Alex Kozinski (a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals). He presents twelve fundamental tenants of the criminal justice system that are flawed and suggests some ways to fix them. (E.g., "Eyewitnesses are highly reliable" and "Long sentences deter crime.") If you haven't read anything by Kozinski, you should. It's very readable. Especially the conclusion. http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/2015/06/Kozinski_Preface.pdf http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/2015/06/Kozinski_Prefa...
• rdl 11y ago
  > "Richard Glossip's only hope now is if the Supreme Court intervenes." Couldn't the President of the United States, Governor of Oklahoma, or other federal judges below the level of the Supreme Court intervene, at least temporarily?
  • tsotha 11y ago
    The governor of Oklahoma can delay the execution or commute his sentence (which she seems disinclined to do), but not the president of the US. POTUS can only commute/pardon federal crimes. I not sure about the court side.
• JackFr 11y ago
  Forget about the 4% innocent. Forget about racial bias and unreliable eyewitnesses. How about we stop executing everyone including the guilty ones. But please, enough with the rest of the world is enlightened and America is basically gun-loving racist troglodytes. It's not true and it's not an argument which will change anyone's mind.
• joshuaheard 11y ago
  Government is too incompetent to have the power to take your life.
  • webXL 11y ago
    I'm sympathetic to that argument, but the logical next step is to say that they're also too incompetent to protect your life, and then it's the wild-west. I believe in extreme circumstances, society should reserve the right to "not turn the other cheek". Nothing is black and white. The government is not completely incompetent, and not all cases have reasonable doubt. But cases like this, no way. Define some clear-cut parameters and apply it to every state uniformly.
    • blister 11y ago
      Isn't this already the case? Our police force, the ones with the motto of "protect and serve" are in the news nearly every day with some sort of gun crime against the citizenry [1]. We literally pay these people to put their lives on the line for us, but it seems to have become OK for them to "shoot first and ask questions later". They have lighter restrictions on the use of force than we had in a war zone in the Army. Perhaps it's time that we DO say that they're too incompetent to protect our lives. Perhaps it's time to vote for an actual change while we still have time. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
    • Frondo 11y ago
      That is not the logical next step. The logical next step is, "so the government should not be in the business of killing people." Life in prison? Sure, though I'm personally not sure depriving someone of their freedom for the rest of their natural life isn't also unacceptably cruel.
      • webXL 11y ago
        "so the government should not be in the business of killing people." But as a species, we're a long way from selecting government officials who don't want to kill. These freaks crave power. And Glossip had the chance to take life if he confessed. He chose death. Just goes to show that cruelty is subjective.
• blfr 11y ago
  If we can't entrust the justice system with the death penalty, how can we entrust it with a lifetime imprisonment? If we eliminate lifetime imprisonment, can we really trust them with 35 year sentences? Twenty years? There is no punishment that fits both the guilty and the innocent. There is no compromise.
• ekianjo 11y ago
  > That's why we can't have the death penalty in the US. I don't know exactly when it's permissible to kill someone. But I know for sure the Oklahoma judicial system should not be allowed to. If they have that power, all it takes is a half-assed police investigation plus a prosecutor playing hardball with plea bargains, and innocent people die. Mmm? So, because the system is not perfect, we should remove death penalty altogether? Is that seriously the point PG is making here? IRL there is no perfect system whatsoever. Yet we learn how to live with risk and deficiencies and hopefully improve things as we move forward to make less mistakes. Whether that applies to the US Judicial system, I don't know, but that's not a good reason to remove the death row altogether. There are a number of criminals who are well known to have no empathy and can kill without remorse or emotion, and I don't see how this kind of individuals can be rehabilitated in any way within society. On top of that, every individual who is conscious about their actions should also face responsibility - that's part of the "social contract" on which we base our actions every single day. There should be strong consequences for murder and certainly Death Row has its place as well. But yeah, there is no discussion that we should have due process to make sure ONLY convicted criminals (with proper evidence) go to Death Row.
  • swehner 11y ago
    You ask "Is that seriously the point PG is making here?" I think that is indeed the case. I also suggest that your writing doesn't make any kind of valuable argument against that suggestion. Yes, of course, "because the system is not perfect, we should remove death penalty altogether." That's the way it is. When you write "There should be strong consequences for murder and certainly Death Row has its place as well," well, maybe you need some more time to think about what those "strong consequences" are?! My impression is that you'll have a difficult time coming up with reasons to support your choices. I always find people who worry about the death penalty have some kind of delusion, are somehow obsessed with the question, for no good reason. Unable to cope with the world as it is.
    • ekianjo 11y ago
      > I think that is indeed the case. Then why is that PG article coming up now? It's not like it's a newsflash that we have innocent people dying in the Death Row. it's been happening for years. Is it an epidermic reaction of some sort ? The news effect, just like people who can't fall asleep for 15 mins because they saw something horrible on TV and then forget it and go on with their lives the next day ? If you are revolted against something, that should be on your agenda every single day of your life, not just when the news talk about it.
• joeevans1000 11y ago
  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."
• cjslep 11y ago
  Central Prison (where death row is for the state of NC) is right by NC State's campus. While I was there I was a heavy metal radio host for WKNC, and received a lot of letters from death row inmates. Very few letters were of the type I was expecting at the time: "Play this Cradle of Filth song for me, or I will file down shards of my broken mirror in order to kill you". Along with very entertaining, if graphic, pieces of artwork. Most of the letters were cordial, but gruff. Hard criticism of songs each inmate did not like, glorified praise for the songs they did like. Rarely, they would describe why a particular song was important to them and it was not anything alien to my freshman self: lost love, old buddies, family, trying times. There was one I replied to and carried on a brief written correspondence with: Tilmon Golphin. Make no mistake, there is no excuse for his actions. But what I found fascinating was the attitude he decided to show in his letters; how true his words were I cannot accurately judge. He showed me major regret of brutally murdering officers of the law and provided no excuses, instead showing acceptance of what he had done with his brother. I later learned that particular case of his and his brother's is one where the US Supreme Court's ruling in Roper v. Simmons divided the sentences of the brothers. Tilmon was 19, and his brother 17, so while both were sentenced to death, the SCOTUS ruling means Tilmon is still on death row while his brother is not. I never would have thought I would learn so much from being a heavy metal radio show host.
  • chch 11y ago
    I'd definitely read more stories about these letters; seems like a very unique perspective! I hadn't heard of Golphin before, so I was curious to read more, and it seems that he's no longer on death row, as of December 2012: http://www.rrdailyherald.com/access/nc-judge-commutes-deaths-sentences-cites-bias/article_8c458de6-45f9-11e2-9492-001a4bcf887a.html http://www.rrdailyherald.com/access/nc-judge-commutes-deaths...
• anacrolix 11y ago
  More generally it seems his argument is: Lessen the punishment because the judicial system isn't reliable. That doesn't seem right. Maybe it should be fixed, rather than introducing hacks like this.
  • jessaustin 11y ago
    How could any such system be improved ("fixed" seems to be asking too much), other than through hacks?
• bruceb 11y ago
  Not the same case but Kayla Gissendaner is set to be executed tomorrow. http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/us/georgia-sets-execution/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/us/georgia-sets-execution/inde... Unless the Georgia parole board changes its mind. She is guilty of having her husband killed. Guilt is not at doubt. The justice of her punishment is. Her children suffered from her crime but they are pleading to keep her alive. She is the only parent they have. Killing their only remaining parent is victimizing them again. Their pleas here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8pgceAhqJo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8pgceAhqJo Georgia parole board contact info: http://pap.georgia.gov/contact-us http://pap.georgia.gov/contact-us
  • appleflaxen 11y ago
    > Her children suffered from her crime but they are pleading to keep her alive. She is the only parent they have. Killing their only remaining parent is victimizing them again. That's on Kayla Gissendaner; nobody else. I'm personally against the death penalty under any circumstances, but this particular case is no more or less egregious than any other.
• emgoldstein 11y ago
  I have to wonder: before writing this essay, did pg read anything written by anyone on the opposite side of this case? For instance, this? https://www.readfrontier.com/investigation/two-truths-and-a-lie-what-records-interviews-reveal-about-richard-glossips-murder-conviction/ https://www.readfrontier.com/investigation/two-truths-and-a-... If not, it seems like a pretty remarkable procedure to arrive at such a strong conclusion, with no other information besides a brief summary by advocates for the defense. Has pg ever served on a jury? If so, would he make his mind up this way?
  • nkurz 11y ago
    Your questions (and link) are good, but I think you might be misinterpreting Paul's logic. He hasn't concluded that Glossip is definitely innocent (although he thinks he probably is), rather he's concluded that in the absence of physical evidence and with the majority of testimony being provided by a witness who has a clear motive to implicate someone else, that there must be "reasonable doubt". He may be wrong, and in particular "reasonable doubt" may not have the legal definition that he thinks it does (legal terms rarely match common sense). But his argument is not "Glossip is innocent", but "there is no way we have sufficient evidence to kill this man without risking that we are killing someone who might be innocent". Have you served on a jury, by the way? I served as the foreman on one relatively minor criminal case, and it did more to shake my faith in the rule-of-law than any other (minimal) encounters I've had with the legal system. In the end, we reached a unanimous "not guilty" in the case. This was a difficult decision for all of us to reach, since the only way this could be the "correct" decision was if both police officers who testified were lying about significant details both in their report and on the stand. And yet this is the conclusion we eventually all agreed upon as being the most likely explanation for the way the pieces failed to fit together. The defendant may well have done other illegal things, and possibly the world would be a better place if he was behind bars, but as a jury we decided that there was sufficient reason to doubt that he was guilty as charged. And yet there was no particular guarantee that this case would turn out as it did. On a different day, with a different jury, a different judge, or different lawyers, (but the same defendant, witnesses, and evidence) a guilty verdict seems likely. As a limited participant in the legal system (but a "logical" computer programmer) my assessment would be that if we have the death penalty, the American jury system is practically guaranteed to occasionally sentence innocent people to death. I'd guess that this is the part that bothers Paul as well, I'd guess that he probably does have experience that leads him to believe this, and I'd guess that his opinion on the matter is not likely to be changed by a counterpoint that makes Glossip's guilt seem somewhat more likely.
• lexcorvus 11y ago
  The subject is different, but the point is the same: It is hard to imagine technology restriction working, because we have to get past imagining this terribly powerful tool being wielded by our utterly incompetent and corrupt rulers. The same problem exists in contemplating effective protectionism. The most obvious outcomes of both these tools simply amount to featherbedding if not outright theft. As a result, protectionism has gained a bad name, and technology restriction is well outside the policy landscape. Yet in actual reality, the problem is not with the tool, but the wielder. Once we admit that USG isn't working and has to go, we can imagine replacing it with something that doesn't suck—and can actually wield such a tool. —Mencius Moldbug, "Sam Altman is not a blithering idiot" (http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/03/sam-altman-is-not-blithering-idiot.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/03/sam-alt...)
• idibidiart 11y ago
  http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/bernie-sanders-on-the-death-penalty-the-state-shouldnt-be-in-the-business-of-killing-people/ http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/bernie-sanders-on-the-death-...
• heyrhett 11y ago
  Many people are also unaware of the high cost and inefficiency of the death penalty in the U.S. With 3002 (as of April 2015) inmates on death row, there were 35 executions in 2014. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf Depending on the state, a trial with a death penalty could cost anywhere from half a million dollars more, to millions more than a trial without a death penalty. Even at the absurdly high price of $35k per year per prisoner, life without parole is likely a cheaper option for tax payers than the death penalty. I don't mean to say this is the only reason why the death penalty is wrong. We know for certain that provably innocent people have been put to death. It's just that in addition to being morally wrong, it's also expensive and a waste of resources. The only reason I can theoretically imagine for keeping it around is that supposedly criminals might be less likely to commit a crime for fear of the death penalty. I think every serious study has shown that harsher penalties don't deter crime. One of the best ways to actually reduce crime is to provide better early education for poor people.
  • Wingman4l7 11y ago
    Ignoring the moralities and can-of-worms question of the death penalty itself for a moment, I've always thought the reasoning of "life without parole is cheaper, so let's do that" was flawed. Why not figure out why the death penalty process is so expensive, and fix that instead? Then you can have your moral & ethical arguments without adding economics to an already hairy debate. I would bet the costs are rooted in over-inflated legal fees and prosecutorial inefficiencies which should be fixed in any case.
• justin_vanw 11y ago
  So I just read whatever I could find on Richard Glossip and the case against him. On it's face it seems very likely that he is guilty. It appears that someone had been stealing money and cooking the books at the hotels Glossip managed, and about the time his boss became aware of the theft, the boss was murdered. He admits to knowing that the boss was murdered and Glossip admits attempting to cover up the murder, his plan being to dissolve the body in acid. Glossip, as manager of the hotel the body was hidden in, reassigned cleaning staff specifically to prevent them from discovering the body. The person who is known to have performed the killing, an employee of Glossip's, says he was paid to do the killing by Glossip. Glossip also split money from the wallet carried by the man that was killed with the killer. Glossip has had a trial and a retrial, and was convicted in both of them. So maybe the death penalty is good, maybe it is bad. Clearly there is a serious debate there, and I am not attempting to defend the death penalty here. There is almost no chance that Glossip is innocent, and it seems clear, to me at least, that the state demonstrated he is guilty to the required standard.
  • afandian 11y ago
    In all of the mistrials and cases where innocent people have been killed, someone has thought the party was guilty. The thing that makes the death penalty barbaric is that people have misplaced confidence in their opinions.
    • justin_vanw 11y ago
      There are two issues here that most commentary about this case seems to be happy to conflate: - Is he guilty - Should he be executed These are independent questions. One is a question of fact, and there seems to be almost no credible reason to doubt his guilt. The other is a question of ethics and policy. As for your argument on why the death penalty is barbaric, it is not a valid argument. Reductio ad absurdum, your argument implies that every punishment is barbaric, because all punishment is the result of people's 'misplaced confidence' in their opinions. So if the death penalty is barbaric, it's certainly not because of the reason you say. Don't take that as an attempt to justify the death penalty. I believe that almost all the prison sentences handed out in the US greatly exceed the severity of the crime being punished. I can't understand why any prison sentence would be for longer than 5 years in those cases where there is no chance of a repeat offense, no matter what the crime was. I also can't understand why we would ever want to let someone out of state supervision (prison or other) if there is a very high chance they would commit additional crimes if released.
• bambax 11y ago
  "There" is reasonable doubt doesn't mean much. Reasonable doubt is not an observable quantity, like water on Mars; the question is whether jurors in the case doubted of the culpability of the accused. Obviously they didn't. If they did, that may save this man's life, but do nothing against death penalty. Death penalty is barbaric; if you can make the case that guilty people should not be executed, I think it's much stronger than if you just argue in favor of the innocent. ... notwithstanding the fact that Scalia argued in 2009 that executing innocent people was perfectly fine: "This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent". (You have to love the quotes around the word 'actually'). - - - Completely OT: inconsistent number of spaces after periods is very annoying (the second paragraph has one, the third or 7th have two for example; the 6th paragraph has both). The correct number of spaces after a period is ONE, but if you disagree, the least you can do is be consistent.
  • Peaker 11y ago
    The point of the essay is that the incompetence causes reasonable doubt not to mean much. And that's why they end up executing innocent people.
• DanielBMarkham 11y ago
  Been thinking about this subject for a long time, for very personal reasons. Capital punishment exists so that people don't go get guns and kill lunatics that have done them harm. For some crimes, only being told "We're going to kill him" holds the social fabric together. It's not justice, it's not fair, and it's a terrible way to run things. One could make the pragmatic argument that if you're going to have a death penalty, then hanging them outside the courthouse the day after the trial is the way to do it. Otherwise you're just making a mockery of trying to be fair -- which this was never about in the first place. When you see somebody kill his family and then say "I deserve the death penalty", when you see families torn apart by evil who demand that the criminal must die, when you see people who are never going to be anything but killers being set free to kill again? Even though you might be against the death penalty, it's pretty obvious why it exists. So I've given up fighting against the death penalty. These things move in cycles. Another 50 years we won't have one and people will be clamoring for one again. Instead, I'm extremely pissed about what pg mentions in closing: prosecutors playing hardball with plea bargains. Whatever you want the laws to be, I've seen enough prosecutorial misconduct over the last decade to last several lifetimes. The vast majority of the time they're doing a great job. But 1-10% of the time the public is getting screwed. The incentives are all wrong and oversight in nonexistent. I've seen them cover for bad cop decisions, screw over aaronsw, refuse to take DNA evidence that would release innocent people from jail -- the list goes on an on. Something is really rotten and needs to be fixed. Even if you believe in the death penalty, you have to admit that the criminal justice system is so broken that it's way beyond a reasonable doubt that we're executing people we shouldn't. The system needs fixing. Not only will this save lives, it will result in many people either not going to prison or serving much less time than they currently are.
• acqq 11y ago
  The death penalty: Of the 49 European countries, only 1 (Belarus) still has the death penalty and executes people. Last time a civilian executed in Mexico: 1937, Canada: 1962, UK: 1977, Russia: 1999 In 2014, only these countries executed more people per million than the US: Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Palestine, China, Singapore, Belarus, Taiwan, Afghanistan and Egypt And North Korea N/A. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country Internationally seen as against the universal human rights: 1948: The United Nations adopted without dissent the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The Declaration proclaims the right of every individual to protection from deprivation of life. It states that no one shall be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment. The death penalty violates both of these fundamental rights. 2005: The UNCHR approved Human Rights Resolution 2005/59 on the question of the death penalty, which called for all states that still maintain the death penalty to abolish the death penalty completely and, in the meantime, to establish a moratorium on executions. 2007: The UN General Assembly (UNGA) approved Resolution 62/149 which called for all states that still maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty. http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/international-death-penalty/death-penalty-and-human-rights-standards http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/inte... 2015, the current year: 20 persons executed in the US At least 278 persons executed in the US just since the last UNGA Resolution. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-list-2015 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-list-2015
  • happyscrappy 11y ago
    The death penalty is to the left what partial birth abortion is to the right. When groups are making emotional pleas to push their agenda then you know you are being played.
    • acqq 11y ago
      Can be being not worse than Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Palestine, China, Singapore, Belarus, Taiwan, Afghanistan and Egypt and possibly North Korea considered as being left or right? And what about the universal human rights? "The right of every individual to protection from deprivation of life" and "no one shall be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment."
• thret 11y ago
  Even if everybody on death row were guilty beyond all doubt, I don't think it is right to sentence an innocent person to kill another human for any reason. I wouldn't want it on my conscience, so how can I demand if of someone else? No innocent person deserves that responsibility.
• dlandis 11y ago
  > at least 4% of people sentenced to death are innocent It should be made clear that this statistic was not derived from counting up actual innocent people who were sentenced. It was a statistical estimate with a number of assumptions built in to it. Not defending the death penalty, just pointing out something that was not stated precisely in my opinion.