20 ms·

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

by 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.

emgoldstein 11y ago
I've served on two juries. In both cases, a drunk driver was acquitted. In both cases, the defendant's guilt was obvious, and the cause was a single juror who hated cops. (Or, more indirectly, the cause was an arrogant young DA who wasn't aggressive enough in voir dire.) On one of these cases, I was the last juror to hold out. It was like "12 Angry Men" in reverse: "12 Hungry Men And Women." It was 5pm, I wanted dinner and so did everyone else, and I didn't want to bring 11 other people back again tomorrow. So I took the easy way out, as did 10 other people. On our way out, the DA thanked us sarcastically and noted that the defendant had two prior DUIs. If we'd given him a third, she pointed out, there might actually have been consequences. As it was... I live in slight terror of glancing at a newspaper and noting that he's erased someone's six-year-old, just because I was hungry and wanted to go home for dinner. To put it slightly differently: a few months ago, a woman in SF suffered the death penalty. She was innocent. She just wanted to look at the sea lions, or something. Unfortunately, San Francisco had sentenced her to death. The executioner was an illegal-immigrant drifter who'd been pulled out of ICE's deportation pipeline by "sanctuary city" policies originally intended for intellectuals fleeing El Salvador in the early 1980s. A couple of days before, he'd smashed the window on a car and stolen a gun, which he was using (according to him) to shoot at sea lions. A bullet Is her death an accident? How about Glossip's? I know of one billionaire who cares a lot about Kathryn Steinle. I know of another billionaire who cares a lot about Richard Glossip. It seems to me both these deaths involve the action of the State, in choosing to allow a human life to be taken -- in one case intentionally based on the determination of guilt, in another case negligently, based on -- honestly, I couldn't even tell you what this level of carelessness is based on. Supposing Glossip is innocent -- which doesn't seem terribly likely once we read the piece above, which is far more detailed and down-to-earth than the emotional appeals that triggered pg. Then, his death would be an accident, wouldn't it? The State did not set out to kill an innocent man. It didn't set out to kill an innocent women, but it did that as well -- with far less thinking than went into Glossip's case. Suppose our other billionaire, the one we adore here instead of laughing at for his ridiculous hair, had chosen to care about the other human life in question. Or, more to the point, the next 1 or 10 or 100 that might be sacrificed in this absurd and cavalier fashion. What would your response have been?
- nkurz 11y ago
  I appreciate the genuineness of your response, but again, I think you may continue to misinterpret Paul's stance. I'm also not clear if Paul is the "other billionaire" you refer to? I presume he's financially successful but I don't know the degree. I should also be clear that I don't know him personally, don't know his politics beyond broad strokes that he has written about, and am interpreting based on what is written rather than inside knowledge. Personally, I'm not against the death penalty in theory. In certain cases, executing criminals may be the best course of action. But I'd like it to be reserved for cases where the guilt is certain and the debate is about the severity of the punishment, rather than ones like this where the guilt itself may be in doubt. My statement that juries are likely to occasionally sentence innocent people to die does not necessarily mean that this is not the least bad of the available bad options. I don't know enough about this particular case to know whether this applies here. > Supposing Glossip is innocent -- which doesn't seem > terribly likely once we read the piece above, which is far > more detailed and down-to-earth than the emotional appeals > that triggered pg. You're stretching here. I'd hope we would both agree that neither article should be taken as proof of either guilt or innocence? And that neither of us knows what other details Paul has or has not read? You started with a legitimate question (has he read counter-articles) but now seem to be presuming your conclusion, and then using that to make further unwarranted logical leaps. > What would your response have been? I probably don't understand your question --- I think you are asking my opinion on whether we should deport illegal aliens who are convicted of violent crimes? If so, then yes. But more importantly I think we should realign the rules we have on the books with the enforcement of those laws. I generally have a stronger belief in rule-of-law as a principle than I have belief that any particular law is or is not correct. I could be happy either with stricter enforcement of current law, or movement toward something like Appiah's Cosmopolitanism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism
  - emgoldstein 11y ago
    The other billionaire is Trump, of course. My point is that if your concern (or pg's) is strictly of the form "minimize the number of innocent people being killed unjustly," there are much more effective reforms available than abolishing the death penalty. For example, switching to the Japanese criminal justice system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Japan Judging by comparative crime rates, this would probably save 10,000 to 15,000 innocent lives per year. And I mean certainly innocent lives, not conceivably innocent lives (like Glossip's). Of course, it would be a reform in more or less exactly the opposite direction than you and everyone on this thread is suggesting. That's why I posted this under a throwaway. Which raises the question: if minimizing the number of innocent lives taken unjustly isn't the source of the general concern for Glossip, what is?

by nkurz 11y ago

emgoldstein 11y ago

I've served on two juries. In both cases, a drunk driver was acquitted. In both cases, the defendant's guilt was obvious, and the cause was a single juror who hated cops. (Or, more indirectly, the cause was an arrogant young DA who wasn't aggressive enough in voir dire.) On one of these cases, I was the last juror to hold out. It was like "12 Angry Men" in reverse: "12 Hungry Men And Women." It was 5pm, I wanted dinner and so did everyone else, and I didn't want to bring 11 other people back again tomorrow. So I took the easy way out, as did 10 other people. On our way out, the DA thanked us sarcastically and noted that the defendant had two prior DUIs. If we'd given him a third, she pointed out, there might actually have been consequences. As it was... I live in slight terror of glancing at a newspaper and noting that he's erased someone's six-year-old, just because I was hungry and wanted to go home for dinner. To put it slightly differently: a few months ago, a woman in SF suffered the death penalty. She was innocent. She just wanted to look at the sea lions, or something. Unfortunately, San Francisco had sentenced her to death. The executioner was an illegal-immigrant drifter who'd been pulled out of ICE's deportation pipeline by "sanctuary city" policies originally intended for intellectuals fleeing El Salvador in the early 1980s. A couple of days before, he'd smashed the window on a car and stolen a gun, which he was using (according to him) to shoot at sea lions. A bullet Is her death an accident? How about Glossip's? I know of one billionaire who cares a lot about Kathryn Steinle. I know of another billionaire who cares a lot about Richard Glossip. It seems to me both these deaths involve the action of the State, in choosing to allow a human life to be taken -- in one case intentionally based on the determination of guilt, in another case negligently, based on -- honestly, I couldn't even tell you what this level of carelessness is based on. Supposing Glossip is innocent -- which doesn't seem terribly likely once we read the piece above, which is far more detailed and down-to-earth than the emotional appeals that triggered pg. Then, his death would be an accident, wouldn't it? The State did not set out to kill an innocent man. It didn't set out to kill an innocent women, but it did that as well -- with far less thinking than went into Glossip's case. Suppose our other billionaire, the one we adore here instead of laughing at for his ridiculous hair, had chosen to care about the other human life in question. Or, more to the point, the next 1 or 10 or 100 that might be sacrificed in this absurd and cavalier fashion. What would your response have been?

nkurz 11y ago
I appreciate the genuineness of your response, but again, I think you may continue to misinterpret Paul's stance. I'm also not clear if Paul is the "other billionaire" you refer to? I presume he's financially successful but I don't know the degree. I should also be clear that I don't know him personally, don't know his politics beyond broad strokes that he has written about, and am interpreting based on what is written rather than inside knowledge. Personally, I'm not against the death penalty in theory. In certain cases, executing criminals may be the best course of action. But I'd like it to be reserved for cases where the guilt is certain and the debate is about the severity of the punishment, rather than ones like this where the guilt itself may be in doubt. My statement that juries are likely to occasionally sentence innocent people to die does not necessarily mean that this is not the least bad of the available bad options. I don't know enough about this particular case to know whether this applies here. > Supposing Glossip is innocent -- which doesn't seem > terribly likely once we read the piece above, which is far > more detailed and down-to-earth than the emotional appeals > that triggered pg. You're stretching here. I'd hope we would both agree that neither article should be taken as proof of either guilt or innocence? And that neither of us knows what other details Paul has or has not read? You started with a legitimate question (has he read counter-articles) but now seem to be presuming your conclusion, and then using that to make further unwarranted logical leaps. > What would your response have been? I probably don't understand your question --- I think you are asking my opinion on whether we should deport illegal aliens who are convicted of violent crimes? If so, then yes. But more importantly I think we should realign the rules we have on the books with the enforcement of those laws. I generally have a stronger belief in rule-of-law as a principle than I have belief that any particular law is or is not correct. I could be happy either with stricter enforcement of current law, or movement toward something like Appiah's Cosmopolitanism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism
- emgoldstein 11y ago
  The other billionaire is Trump, of course. My point is that if your concern (or pg's) is strictly of the form "minimize the number of innocent people being killed unjustly," there are much more effective reforms available than abolishing the death penalty. For example, switching to the Japanese criminal justice system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Japan Judging by comparative crime rates, this would probably save 10,000 to 15,000 innocent lives per year. And I mean certainly innocent lives, not conceivably innocent lives (like Glossip's). Of course, it would be a reform in more or less exactly the opposite direction than you and everyone on this thread is suggesting. That's why I posted this under a throwaway. Which raises the question: if minimizing the number of innocent lives taken unjustly isn't the source of the general concern for Glossip, what is?