4 ms·

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

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.
  - afandian 11y ago
    You can't give someone their life back. Nearly any other punishment can be stopped.
    - justin_vanw 11y ago
      That's basically true, but maybe it is pretty simplistic. For example, there are tons of people in prison for 5 years, 20 years, lifetimes that don't have the intelligence, resources, or opportunity to 'have their punishment stopped'. They will serve out their time despite being innocent, and despite not getting the death sentence. It in theory could be stopped, since it's not irreversible, but it will not be stopped and nothing will be done. I find it hard to believe that a form of punishment is more just or better in any other way because it 'can, but actually won't be, stopped'.
      - ghostDancer 11y ago
        There's always a possibility to correct the mistake but with death penalty there's no way back. You are telling that if you find you have a deadly disease you won't try a treatment cause in the end you are going to die anyway.
    - wtbob 11y ago
      You're right that you can't get someone his life back: you can't give back someone the empty years he spent in prison; you can't remove the pain and agony of years removed from polite society; you can't remove the cruelty and abuse he experienced from other prisoners. Punishment's unpleasant (that's its nature); death and imprisonment are unpleasant. And yet, there are crimes which deserve death. Not to execute vicious murderers, rapists & traitors is a profound miscarriage of justice.
      - drabiega 11y ago
        Well, you can't just execute those people. You either execute no one or you execute some innocent people along with the 'deserving'. You think it is more just to kill the innocent than simple imprison the 'deserving' for life?
mariodiana 11y ago
"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." A couple of weeks ago when Glossip was all the rage, the various sources arguing that he should be spared somehow neglected to mention any of this. They did mention though that the actual killer is the the one who fingered Glossip, which made me sympathize with the man's possible innocence. I must say, I'm far less sympathetic now.
knodi123 11y ago
> someone had been stealing money and cooking the books at the hotels Glossip managed From https://theintercept.com/2015/07/09/oklahoma-prepares-resume-executions-richard-glossip-first-line-die/ https://theintercept.com/2015/07/09/oklahoma-prepares-resume... , "[the victim's] brother Kenneth, who took over operation of the motel after the murder, testified in 2004 that the motel’s financial shortages were “really insignificant amounts of money” and would not have worried Barry. The Oklahoma City motel, he said, was a “very profitable operation.” " > Glossip, as manager of the hotel the body was hidden in, reassigned cleaning staff specifically to prevent them from discovering the body "Sneed would [later] testify that he was the one who told the maid to ignore Room 102." > 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. From http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/09/richard_glossip_innocence_governor_or_supreme_court_should_stay_oklahoma.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc... The murderer was threatened with the death penalty unless he fingered Glossip. He says he would recant his testimony in a heartbeat if he could be assured he wouldn't be executed himself. > Glossip has had a trial and a retrial, and was convicted in both of them. Said one juror, "“If the defense would have presented the case that they are presenting now in the original trial,” the juror said, “I would have not given a guilty verdict.”"

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.
- afandian 11y ago
  You can't give someone their life back. Nearly any other punishment can be stopped.
  - justin_vanw 11y ago
    That's basically true, but maybe it is pretty simplistic. For example, there are tons of people in prison for 5 years, 20 years, lifetimes that don't have the intelligence, resources, or opportunity to 'have their punishment stopped'. They will serve out their time despite being innocent, and despite not getting the death sentence. It in theory could be stopped, since it's not irreversible, but it will not be stopped and nothing will be done. I find it hard to believe that a form of punishment is more just or better in any other way because it 'can, but actually won't be, stopped'.
    - ghostDancer 11y ago
      There's always a possibility to correct the mistake but with death penalty there's no way back. You are telling that if you find you have a deadly disease you won't try a treatment cause in the end you are going to die anyway.
  - wtbob 11y ago
    You're right that you can't get someone his life back: you can't give back someone the empty years he spent in prison; you can't remove the pain and agony of years removed from polite society; you can't remove the cruelty and abuse he experienced from other prisoners. Punishment's unpleasant (that's its nature); death and imprisonment are unpleasant. And yet, there are crimes which deserve death. Not to execute vicious murderers, rapists & traitors is a profound miscarriage of justice.
    - drabiega 11y ago
      Well, you can't just execute those people. You either execute no one or you execute some innocent people along with the 'deserving'. You think it is more just to kill the innocent than simple imprison the 'deserving' for life?

mariodiana 11y ago

"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." A couple of weeks ago when Glossip was all the rage, the various sources arguing that he should be spared somehow neglected to mention any of this. They did mention though that the actual killer is the the one who fingered Glossip, which made me sympathize with the man's possible innocence. I must say, I'm far less sympathetic now.

knodi123 11y ago

> someone had been stealing money and cooking the books at the hotels Glossip managed From https://theintercept.com/2015/07/09/oklahoma-prepares-resume-executions-richard-glossip-first-line-die/ https://theintercept.com/2015/07/09/oklahoma-prepares-resume... , "[the victim's] brother Kenneth, who took over operation of the motel after the murder, testified in 2004 that the motel’s financial shortages were “really insignificant amounts of money” and would not have worried Barry. The Oklahoma City motel, he said, was a “very profitable operation.” " > Glossip, as manager of the hotel the body was hidden in, reassigned cleaning staff specifically to prevent them from discovering the body "Sneed would [later] testify that he was the one who told the maid to ignore Room 102." > 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. From http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/09/richard_glossip_innocence_governor_or_supreme_court_should_stay_oklahoma.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc... The murderer was threatened with the death penalty unless he fingered Glossip. He says he would recant his testimony in a heartbeat if he could be assured he wouldn't be executed himself. > Glossip has had a trial and a retrial, and was convicted in both of them. Said one juror, "“If the defense would have presented the case that they are presenting now in the original trial,” the juror said, “I would have not given a guilty verdict.”"