Would you execute this man?

[lucas80]

Richard Glossip is sitting on death row in Oklahoma. He was given the death sentence for his supposed role in the murder of the motel he worked at. No physical evidence linked him to the murder, just the testimony of the Justin Sneed, the man who admitted to murdering the motel owner. In exchange for implicating Glossip, Sneed was given a lesser sentence. Sneed's testimony is in doubt as multiple people have testified in sworn affidavits that Sneed told them he'd lied in order to get the lesser sentence.
I have lots of reasons to be against the death penalty, but, this case highlights many of them. Poor defense work for a low income defendant. Inconsistent application of the death penalty (The man who admits to doing the killing will not be executed), and politics. Oklahoma's governor does not want to appear weak on crime by looking at the morality of this execution.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/richard-glossip-execution_55e4e535e4b0aec9f35454e6

 

[hawkeye54545]

I'm for the death penalty but from just reading what you have presented I'd say no in this case.

 

[The Tradition]

Is there a take on this case from a source other than HuffPo? I mean, seriously...

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

This is the main reason I'm against the death penalty. I don't think we can entirely trust the courts to always get it right in emotionally charged cases. Plus it's inconsistently applied towards males and minorities.

I don't have a big moral issue with someone who killed someone being put to death themselves, but logistically I don't think it works out well. Plus I have to say I don't personally see life without parole as some big loss. I only see it as really important to remove that person from society which life without parole does. I don't feel dejected at the thought that we arn't gonna kill them back.

Quite honestly the fact that someone can be convicted on the testimony of someone who was given a lesser sentence in order to testify is astounding.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Is there a take on this case from a source other than HuffPo? I mean, seriously...

Here is an article from the Tulsa World, I assume it is a local paper. Fairly even handed article. Many of the pro death penalty folks on this board have said that there should be a higher standard of proof for sentencing someone to die. I think there may have been enough to convict, but not to that higher standard. When your primary evidence is the word of the admitted murder, that's not enough.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/cour...cle_1247f4c4-a8be-5492-b438-1c5d39c8b571.html

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Is there a take on this case from a source other than HuffPo? I mean, seriously...

Wikipedia says that he was convicted of hiring Sneed on the testimony of Sneed who was spared the death penalty in exchange for testifying against him.

Apparently they both worked for the guy that he killed.

Sounds pretty fishy to me.

 

[moral_victory]

Is there a take on this case from a source other than HuffPo? I mean, seriously...

Do you mean, seriously?

 

[KitingHigh]

Against the death penalty and this kind of case is the main reason why.

 

[22*43*51]

Sounds like the sentence should be easy to overturn on appeal if it is as Huffpo states.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Sounds like the sentence should be easy to overturn on appeal if it is as Huffpo states.

You underestimate how much the court system prefers to avoid admitting to mistakes and how long it takes them to do so.

Even obvious cases can drag on for years.

When the court convicts you then you essentially have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you DIDN'T commit the crime. That's extremely hard to do.

 

[coloradonoles]

I'm for the Death Penalty, just not the way we currently use it.

 

[22*43*51]

When the court convicts you then you essentially have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you DIDN'T commit the crime. That's extremely hard to do.

That should be how it is, shouldn't it?

In the initial proceedings you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Richard Glossip is sitting on death row in Oklahoma. He was given the death sentence for his supposed role in the murder of the motel he worked at. No physical evidence linked him to the murder, just the testimony of the Justin Sneed, the man who admitted to murdering the motel owner. In exchange for implicating Glossip, Sneed was given a lesser sentence. Sneed's testimony is in doubt as multiple people have testified in sworn affidavits that Sneed told them he'd lied in order to get the lesser sentence.
I have lots of reasons to be against the death penalty, but, this case highlights many of them. Poor defense work for a low income defendant. Inconsistent application of the death penalty (The man who admits to doing the killing will not be executed), and politics. Oklahoma's governor does not want to appear weak on crime by looking at the morality of this execution.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/richard-glossip-execution_55e4e535e4b0aec9f35454e6

Well, he is still alive so far. They have a chance to correct this.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

That should be how it is, shouldn't it?

In the initial proceedings you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well when you are convicted on faulty evidence in the first place I would say no you shouldn't have to prove that you are innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. A much lower standard should be in play here.

You didn't even have the proper opportunity to a correct trial to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because someone made a deal with someone else that gave that person every incentive to lie about your guilt.

 

[KitingHigh]

That should be how it is, shouldn't it?

In the initial proceedings you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

No, it's not.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Is there a take on this case from a source other than HuffPo? I mean, seriously...

Try this: http://bfy.tw/2NQV

 

[22*43*51]

When the court convicts you then you essentially have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you DIDN'T commit the crime. That's extremely hard to do.

That should be how it is, shouldn't it?

In the initial proceedings you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well when you are convicted on faulty evidence in the first place I would say no you shouldn't have to prove that you are innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. A much lower standard should be in play here.

You didn't even have the proper opportunity to a correct trial to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because someone made a deal with someone else that gave that person every incentive to lie about your guilt.

How do you suggest proving faulty evidence if not through the appeals process?

Especially if you couldn't do it during the trial?

 

[22*43*51]

No, it's not.

Why not?

Should Habeas Corpus be called into question too?

 

[NoleSoup4U]

I'm against the death penalty, so no.

 

[KitingHigh]

Why not?

Should Habeas Corpus be called into question too?

I might have made that a little confusing. I meant the standard for appeal should not be that you have to prove innocence. If it can be shown that the prosecution corrupted the trial or evidence then the standard should be the same of the original trial and the state should have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

That should be how it is, shouldn't it?

In the initial proceedings you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

So explain how Richard Glossip was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[The Tradition]

So explain how Richard Glossip was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt?

I would imagine only the jury could answer that one.

 

[22*43*51]

So explain how Richard Glossip was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt?

I am going to go out on a limb and say it came by way of a Jury of his peers.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I am going to go out on a limb and say it came by way of a Jury of his peers.

So now all you have to do is explain how we sentence people to death based solely on the coerced testimony of the person who actually did the shooting. And if the jury system is capable of doing that, maybe we shouldn't give them the option of killing someone based on such flimsy...I don't know what to call it but it's not evidence.

 

[22*43*51]

So now all you have to do is explain how we sentence people to death based solely on the coerced testimony of the person who actually did the shooting. And if the jury system is capable of doing that, maybe we shouldn't give them the option of killing someone based on such flimsy...I don't know what to call it but it's not evidence.

Don't get emotional.

We still have a appeals process. If the error is as egregious as you illustrate it will catch it.

Science will only get better and aide prosecutors and defense attorneys alike.

 

[Gimmered]

Here is an article from the Tulsa World, I assume it is a local paper. Fairly even handed article. Many of the pro death penalty folks on this board have said that there should be a higher standard of proof for sentencing someone to die. I think there may have been enough to convict, but not to that higher standard. When your primary evidence is the word of the admitted murder, that's not enough.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/cour...cle_1247f4c4-a8be-5492-b438-1c5d39c8b571.html

I think the case could be made for beyond a shadow of doubt instead of a reasonable doubt in death sentences.

 

[ANYCHawk]

 

[naturalmwa]

Is there a take on this case from a source other than HuffPo? I mean, seriously...

Google is free.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Don't get emotional.

We still have a appeals process. If the error is as egregious as you illustrate it will catch it.

Science will only get better and aide prosecutors and defense attorneys alike.

Wow...who knew you had so much faith in the govt. I'm making a note of this.

 

[joelbc1]

Sounds like the sentence should be easy to overturn on appeal if it is as Huffpo states.

THere is NEVER an "easy" way to overturn any conviction. It can happen but it takes a lot of work and tons of "billable" hours to do so.

 

[swagsurfer02]

I'll execute ANYONE who gets in my way!

 

[22*43*51]

THere is NEVER an "easy" way to overturn any conviction. It can happen but it takes a lot of work and tons of "billable" hours to do so.

As it should.

 

[22*43*51]

Wow...who knew you had so much faith in the govt. I'm making a note of this.

Your failed faith in the Deity of Government will like-wise be noted.

You might consider reconciliation.

 

[Guido Sarducci]

Richard Glossip is sitting on death row in Oklahoma. He was given the death sentence for his supposed role in the murder of the motel he worked at. No physical evidence linked him to the murder, just the testimony of the Justin Sneed, the man who admitted to murdering the motel owner. In exchange for implicating Glossip, Sneed was given a lesser sentence. Sneed's testimony is in doubt as multiple people have testified in sworn affidavits that Sneed told them he'd lied in order to get the lesser sentence.
I have lots of reasons to be against the death penalty, but, this case highlights many of them. Poor defense work for a low income defendant. Inconsistent application of the death penalty (The man who admits to doing the killing will not be executed), and politics. Oklahoma's governor does not want to appear weak on crime by looking at the morality of this execution.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/richard-glossip-execution_55e4e535e4b0aec9f35454e6

I don't think he should be executed, because I don't believe murdering a building is grounds for the death penalty. Usually you have to actually murder a real live human being.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Conservatives have tons of faith in the courts when it comes to killing *other* people. (By other I mean poor people.)

But when it comes to making rulings on political problems of the day or making rulings in private tort cases they have zero faith in the courts.

 

[lucas80]

9 years later and the Supreme Court will hear an appeal backed by the conservative AG of Oklahoma who believes Glossip did not receive a fair trial. Oklahoma is paying counsel to represent its case due to the AG backing Glossip.

Oklahoma death row inmate had three 'last meals.' He's back at Supreme Court in new bid for freedom

Nine times the state of Oklahoma has set a date to execute death row inmate Richard Glossip. And nine times Glossip, now 61, has gotten another chance at life.

apnews.com

 

[hawkifann]

9 years later and the Supreme Court will hear an appeal backed by the conservative AG of Oklahoma who believes Glossip did not receive a fair trial. Oklahoma is paying counsel to represent its case due to the AG backing Glossip.

Oklahoma death row inmate had three 'last meals.' He's back at Supreme Court in new bid for freedom

Nine times the state of Oklahoma has set a date to execute death row inmate Richard Glossip. And nine times Glossip, now 61, has gotten another chance at life.

apnews.com

If the AG of Oklahoma is pushing to avoid the death penalty, that speaks volumes.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

The guy who accused him has recanted. He wasn’t allowed to have his mental health meds during the trial. Glossip has eaten his “last meal” three times. That is the definition of cruel and unusual punishment. And the SC could refuse to order a new trial which means he dies.