4 ms·

One of the most crucial aspects of the death penalty is that it is reserved for people that physically kill other human beings. The mere fact that the laws of

One of the most crucial aspects of the death penalty is that it is reserved for people that physically kill other human beings. The mere fact that the laws of a US state even allowed the possibility of a death sentence for someone that did not personally kill someone else is a serious problem. That's before even considering the possibility that he may have been wrongly convicted. Personally, I don't understand why we have the death penalty in the US. First, the possibility of a wrongful conviction is real. Second, we have prisons that are brutal and allow very few escapes, making life in prison a far worse punishment than the death penalty. Remember that the death penalty for a prisoner these days consists of falling asleep and not waking up. There simply are no valid reasons to impose the death penalty in a country like the US.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
What? Glossip hired a hitman to kill someone. How is that not murder? Just because you're wealthy enough to not do the dirty work means you're somehow above the DP, but poor people who can't should get the DP? That's insane! There are irregular aspects to this case, but the idea of hitman hirers being immune from the DP is pretty crazy. That's the same as murdering someone with your own hands, both morally and legally.
- halosghost 11y ago
  > Just because you're wealthy enough to not do the dirty work means you're somehow above the DP, but poor people who can't should get the DP? This is actually not a good argument at all in-favor of the death penalty for this person but rather another great argument for its elimination entirely.
- mszyndel 11y ago
  The problem is he may have not hired that hitman and whole this may have been made up by other convict to get lower sentence...
  - MichaelGG 11y ago
    Glossip's first lawyer claims that the police made this up and convinced Sneed to say Glossip hired him. The lawyer says the full interrogation wasn't showed, but a redacted version where the police first prime Sneed then start recording his "good" answers. It is troubling that there's zero evidence other than the word of a "hitman".
- ak39 11y ago
  No, what's insane is the collective desire, the organised process, the co-opting of doctors against their Hippocratic Oath to see the end of another human being's life. Guilty or not, the idea of "punishing" by killing is barbaric, illogical and uneducated. The field of neuroscience based psychiatry and the works of the great minds like Robert Sapolsky must prevail. This has to stop.
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    >the co-opting of doctors against their Hippocratic Oath to see the end of another human being's life So you want to ban abortion? Assisted suicide?
    - ak39 11y ago
      Do I "want" an end to elected abortion? Yes. Do I "want" to stop assisted suicide? No. Do I "want" an end to organised execution of convicted criminals? Yes. Your move.
      - happyscrappy 11y ago
        Does assisted suicide not break the Hippocratic Oath?
        ak39 11y ago
        Not all the time. These points: 1. There are times when doctors, in order to reduce pain in their patients, accelerate their death as part of pain management. This is usually done at the end of long incurable illnesses or injuries from which recovery is unlikely. The consequence of alleviating pain can be death. Whether it is thought of deliberately or not by the caregivers/doctors does not matter. The point is that the event of death is hastened directly by the act of helping the patient. 2. The patient is choosing to end his life. (I hope you don't ask what is to be done with depression/suicidal patients.) ... and lastly, and simply: 3. Many times the assistance may be done by a non-doctor - so the Hippocratic Oath may not apply directly.
- neoCrimeLabs 11y ago
  The only evidence he hired anyone is from the testimony of the already convicted murderer in exchange for not going to death row himself. How many people would readily lie to avoid the death penalty, especially when there is no doubt he comitted murder?
riquito 11y ago
> One of the most crucial aspects of the death penalty is that it is reserved for people that physically kill other human beings. The mere fact that the laws of a US state even allowed the possibility of a death sentence for someone that did not personally kill someone else is a serious problem. Death penalty aside, the boss that order to kill people should be given a lighter punishment because he didn't execute the evil action directly? I think he should have an heavier sentence instead.
- matt-attack 11y ago
  > I think he should have an heavier sentence instead. That's quite debatable. I'm not sure I even believe that the boss who ordered a kill is even guilty of a crime. If his subordinate didn't actually pull a trigger then no crime would be committed. How can one person's crime be a function of another person's actions. It just doesn't compute.
  - notahacker 11y ago
    I don't think I'm alone in being unable to compute the suggestion that someone who orders a murder is not guilty of any crime...
  - knodi123 11y ago
    > If his subordinate didn't actually pull a trigger then no crime would be committed. No, at that point it would be the crime of attempted murder.
    - matt-attack 11y ago
      Fair enough.
  - qrendel 11y ago
    Because subordinates may be less qualified to judge whether the action is a crime or not. This would basically place the onus on the lowest level of the hierarchy in determining whether an action is ethically acceptable. People are frequently trained not to question their superiors judgment and to just follow orders. I'm not saying this is right, especially when in some cases the person executing the order may be in a better position to understand the implications, but it puts a conflict between expecting subordinates to second guess every order they're given, which isn't healthy for a well functioning organizational hierarchy. It also puts the person who would otherwise be "just following orders" at risk if they make a misjudgment, discouraging them from disobeying even if they suspect what they're doing is unethical.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
One of the most crucial aspects of the death penalty is that it is reserved for people that physically kill other human beings. It should be highlighted that this is actually a relatively recent understanding, and still by no means a universal one.
maratd 11y ago
> There is simply no logical reason to be in favor of the death penalty, at least in the US, but there are plenty of reasons to oppose it. It is cruel and absolutely horrific to keep a human being in isolation. It is against our nature in every way and people literally lose their minds. This is a fate worse than death. So what do you do when an inmate is a clear danger to other inmates? When an inmate has clearly shown that he will murder those who are imprisoned with him? You have two choices. Isolation or death. There are other reasons for the death "penalty", but I certainly agree that it should never be used as a penalty, but as a measure of last resort.
- waqf 11y ago
  > You have two choices. Isolation or death. Or psychiatric treatment.
  - maratd 11y ago
    > Or psychiatric treatment. You want to drug them until they're a vegetable? Ok, I guess that's an option, but I would still put that under "worse than death" category.
evanpw 11y ago
> One of the most crucial aspects of the death penalty is that it is reserved for people that physically kill other human beings. I disagree with this. It shouldn't matter whether your murder weapon is a baseball bat or a person you've hired, in both cases you're equally guilty. It's similar to the case of a bomber: the fact that they didn't personally perform a violent act, just built a machine, doesn't absolve them of guilt. (For the record, I don't support the death penalty, but I think that murder and hiring a hitman should carry the same penalty). > making life in prison a far worse punishment than the death penalty Your second paragraph seems to contradict itself. If life in prison is worse than the death penalty, then the possibility of wrongful convictions should make the death penalty more appealing, since some of those we imprison for life will be innocent.
- downandout 11y ago
  > the possibility of wrongful convictions should make the death penalty more appealing Did you really just say that? If someone is locked away and their conviction is overturned, we can always let them out. However, we cannot dig them up after we kill them.
  - celticninja 11y ago
    Well we can dig them up but that really doesn't help the situation.
  - evanpw 11y ago
    True, but that only matters if their conviction actually does get overturned, which is pretty rare. And even then, if you get exonerated after 30-40 years, most of the damage is already done. I'm actually trying to disagree with the statement that the death penalty is more humane than life in prison. If you assume that's true, one consequence is that we should prefer to execute innocent people rather than imprison them for life. If you think that conclusion is absurd (like I do), then you should reconsider the original statement.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

What? Glossip hired a hitman to kill someone. How is that not murder? Just because you're wealthy enough to not do the dirty work means you're somehow above the DP, but poor people who can't should get the DP? That's insane! There are irregular aspects to this case, but the idea of hitman hirers being immune from the DP is pretty crazy. That's the same as murdering someone with your own hands, both morally and legally.

halosghost 11y ago
> Just because you're wealthy enough to not do the dirty work means you're somehow above the DP, but poor people who can't should get the DP? This is actually not a good argument at all in-favor of the death penalty for this person but rather another great argument for its elimination entirely.
mszyndel 11y ago
The problem is he may have not hired that hitman and whole this may have been made up by other convict to get lower sentence...
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  Glossip's first lawyer claims that the police made this up and convinced Sneed to say Glossip hired him. The lawyer says the full interrogation wasn't showed, but a redacted version where the police first prime Sneed then start recording his "good" answers. It is troubling that there's zero evidence other than the word of a "hitman".
ak39 11y ago
No, what's insane is the collective desire, the organised process, the co-opting of doctors against their Hippocratic Oath to see the end of another human being's life. Guilty or not, the idea of "punishing" by killing is barbaric, illogical and uneducated. The field of neuroscience based psychiatry and the works of the great minds like Robert Sapolsky must prevail. This has to stop.
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  >the co-opting of doctors against their Hippocratic Oath to see the end of another human being's life So you want to ban abortion? Assisted suicide?
  - ak39 11y ago
    Do I "want" an end to elected abortion? Yes. Do I "want" to stop assisted suicide? No. Do I "want" an end to organised execution of convicted criminals? Yes. Your move.
    - happyscrappy 11y ago
      Does assisted suicide not break the Hippocratic Oath?
      - ak39 11y ago
        Not all the time. These points: 1. There are times when doctors, in order to reduce pain in their patients, accelerate their death as part of pain management. This is usually done at the end of long incurable illnesses or injuries from which recovery is unlikely. The consequence of alleviating pain can be death. Whether it is thought of deliberately or not by the caregivers/doctors does not matter. The point is that the event of death is hastened directly by the act of helping the patient. 2. The patient is choosing to end his life. (I hope you don't ask what is to be done with depression/suicidal patients.) ... and lastly, and simply: 3. Many times the assistance may be done by a non-doctor - so the Hippocratic Oath may not apply directly.
neoCrimeLabs 11y ago
The only evidence he hired anyone is from the testimony of the already convicted murderer in exchange for not going to death row himself. How many people would readily lie to avoid the death penalty, especially when there is no doubt he comitted murder?

riquito 11y ago

> One of the most crucial aspects of the death penalty is that it is reserved for people that physically kill other human beings. The mere fact that the laws of a US state even allowed the possibility of a death sentence for someone that did not personally kill someone else is a serious problem. Death penalty aside, the boss that order to kill people should be given a lighter punishment because he didn't execute the evil action directly? I think he should have an heavier sentence instead.

matt-attack 11y ago
> I think he should have an heavier sentence instead. That's quite debatable. I'm not sure I even believe that the boss who ordered a kill is even guilty of a crime. If his subordinate didn't actually pull a trigger then no crime would be committed. How can one person's crime be a function of another person's actions. It just doesn't compute.
- notahacker 11y ago
  I don't think I'm alone in being unable to compute the suggestion that someone who orders a murder is not guilty of any crime...
- knodi123 11y ago
  > If his subordinate didn't actually pull a trigger then no crime would be committed. No, at that point it would be the crime of attempted murder.
  - matt-attack 11y ago
    Fair enough.
- qrendel 11y ago
  Because subordinates may be less qualified to judge whether the action is a crime or not. This would basically place the onus on the lowest level of the hierarchy in determining whether an action is ethically acceptable. People are frequently trained not to question their superiors judgment and to just follow orders. I'm not saying this is right, especially when in some cases the person executing the order may be in a better position to understand the implications, but it puts a conflict between expecting subordinates to second guess every order they're given, which isn't healthy for a well functioning organizational hierarchy. It also puts the person who would otherwise be "just following orders" at risk if they make a misjudgment, discouraging them from disobeying even if they suspect what they're doing is unethical.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

One of the most crucial aspects of the death penalty is that it is reserved for people that physically kill other human beings. It should be highlighted that this is actually a relatively recent understanding, and still by no means a universal one.

maratd 11y ago

> There is simply no logical reason to be in favor of the death penalty, at least in the US, but there are plenty of reasons to oppose it. It is cruel and absolutely horrific to keep a human being in isolation. It is against our nature in every way and people literally lose their minds. This is a fate worse than death. So what do you do when an inmate is a clear danger to other inmates? When an inmate has clearly shown that he will murder those who are imprisoned with him? You have two choices. Isolation or death. There are other reasons for the death "penalty", but I certainly agree that it should never be used as a penalty, but as a measure of last resort.

waqf 11y ago
> You have two choices. Isolation or death. Or psychiatric treatment.
- maratd 11y ago
  > Or psychiatric treatment. You want to drug them until they're a vegetable? Ok, I guess that's an option, but I would still put that under "worse than death" category.

evanpw 11y ago

> One of the most crucial aspects of the death penalty is that it is reserved for people that physically kill other human beings. I disagree with this. It shouldn't matter whether your murder weapon is a baseball bat or a person you've hired, in both cases you're equally guilty. It's similar to the case of a bomber: the fact that they didn't personally perform a violent act, just built a machine, doesn't absolve them of guilt. (For the record, I don't support the death penalty, but I think that murder and hiring a hitman should carry the same penalty). > making life in prison a far worse punishment than the death penalty Your second paragraph seems to contradict itself. If life in prison is worse than the death penalty, then the possibility of wrongful convictions should make the death penalty more appealing, since some of those we imprison for life will be innocent.

downandout 11y ago
> the possibility of wrongful convictions should make the death penalty more appealing Did you really just say that? If someone is locked away and their conviction is overturned, we can always let them out. However, we cannot dig them up after we kill them.
- celticninja 11y ago
  Well we can dig them up but that really doesn't help the situation.
- evanpw 11y ago
  True, but that only matters if their conviction actually does get overturned, which is pretty rare. And even then, if you get exonerated after 30-40 years, most of the damage is already done. I'm actually trying to disagree with the statement that the death penalty is more humane than life in prison. If you assume that's true, one consequence is that we should prefer to execute innocent people rather than imprison them for life. If you think that conclusion is absurd (like I do), then you should reconsider the original statement.