4 ms·

Clemency seems like the correct remedy here. The court only interprets the law as it is written. The system has a failsafe for this situation. Clemency is th

by mulmen 4y ago

Clemency seems like the correct remedy here. The court only interprets the law as it is written. The system has a failsafe for this situation. Clemency is that failsafe. This is yet another example of why legislatures need to eliminate capital punishment. It's something we have to get right 100% of the time, and that is impossible.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> The court can't just decide to not enforce the law. The court doesn't enforce anything; that's the executive's job. They can decide the law is unconstitutional, and thus unenforcable.
- mulmen 4y ago
  You're right. Updated.
biomcgary 4y ago
Under the circumstances, clemency does seem like the best option to me. However, it does not roll back the guilty verdict, which would(?) be possible if resolved within the judicial arm rather than the executive.
- mulmen 4y ago
  Except it can't be resolved in the judicial arm because the law of Oklahoma explicitly prohibits that from happening.
  - biomcgary 4y ago
    The explicit prohibition that you are referring to: is it explicit in the law written by the legislature or made explicit by prior case law (i.e., judicial interpretation)? I'm curious because I've heard arguments for and against common law that this seems relevant to, if the latter.
    - mulmen 4y ago
      From GavinMcG's (currently top) comment [1] in this thread: > The statute in question ([0] – see (D)(8)) says the court may not consider the merits or grant relief unless there are facts or legal rationales that could not have been raised earlier. The court isn't empowered to do something just because two parties agree. [0] https://casetext.com/statute/oklahoma-statutes/title-22-criminal-procedure/uniform-post-conviction-procedure-act/section-1089-capital-cases-post-conviction-relief-grounds-for-appeal https://casetext.com/statute/oklahoma-statutes/title-22-crim... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35780147 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35780147
      - biomcgary 4y ago
        Thank you, I missed that.

by mulmen 4y ago

ceejayoz 4y ago

> The court can't just decide to not enforce the law. The court doesn't enforce anything; that's the executive's job. They can decide the law is unconstitutional, and thus unenforcable.

mulmen 4y ago
You're right. Updated.

biomcgary 4y ago

Under the circumstances, clemency does seem like the best option to me. However, it does not roll back the guilty verdict, which would(?) be possible if resolved within the judicial arm rather than the executive.

mulmen 4y ago
Except it can't be resolved in the judicial arm because the law of Oklahoma explicitly prohibits that from happening.
- biomcgary 4y ago
  The explicit prohibition that you are referring to: is it explicit in the law written by the legislature or made explicit by prior case law (i.e., judicial interpretation)? I'm curious because I've heard arguments for and against common law that this seems relevant to, if the latter.
  - mulmen 4y ago
    From GavinMcG's (currently top) comment [1] in this thread: > The statute in question ([0] – see (D)(8)) says the court may not consider the merits or grant relief unless there are facts or legal rationales that could not have been raised earlier. The court isn't empowered to do something just because two parties agree. [0] https://casetext.com/statute/oklahoma-statutes/title-22-criminal-procedure/uniform-post-conviction-procedure-act/section-1089-capital-cases-post-conviction-relief-grounds-for-appeal https://casetext.com/statute/oklahoma-statutes/title-22-crim... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35780147 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35780147
    - biomcgary 4y ago
      Thank you, I missed that.