Angelus Errare
Banned
And what makes it worse is that people are completely fine with it because "it's not me" ugh.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
A Man Whos Probably Innocent Will Die Today, And Lawyers Cant Save Him
- Thread starter Vanillalite
- Start date
- Status
EASTC0AST_GH05T
Member
Glossips going to get killed and then years later the man that got the lesser sentence is going to come forward and admit that he lied and take responsibility for the whole thing and he will get to live a full life.
brainchild
Banned
So which is it, the execution or the 60 day stay? I'm confused.
Late response, but let me rephrase your quote:
There is no way to tell how many of the over 1000 people executed since 1976 may also have been guilty.
The point raised in that quote went pretty solidly over your head.
I'm referring to Metaphoreus's implication that it means enough of them are gulity to permit the death penalty, by restating it with the connonation flipped around.
Apologies then, it seemed like you were implying that the response to "some of them were innocent" was "some of them were guilty". It's probably too late to be posting.
Well that didn't really work as intended.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
No. As I pointed out before:
Anyhow, for those interested, here's a link to the order from the Court of Criminal Appeals. The main opinion begins on page 8 of the linked document.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Well this is just deeply depressing.
Execution.
The 60-day stay was in the dissent of one of the two judges who favoured the appeal to halt the execution.
brainchild
Banned
Yes, yes I am.
We're going to be fallible no matter what we do, I still think it is a better outcome.
I'd be amused by how you sound like a comic book villain, but it's just fucking disgusting when we're talking about a system that has actually killed and will continue to kill innocent people in my country. Metaphoreus, you do not want the death penalty to channel "society's" bloodlust. You want it to satiate your own.
Chmpocalypse
Blizzard
Truly fucked up. Imagine it was someone you loved walking to their death for a crime they didn't commit. Is that possible for you?
Angelus Errare
Banned
Don't you understand?! By having the death penalty it totes defers others from killing because their bloodlust is sated due to random people being killed by the law!!
Totes makes sense...totes.
Yes? I would be extremely upset that that was happening. I would be upset if they were spending life in prison too though. Don't mistake pragmatism for lack of empathy. The problem is in the defense as I outlined in the post I was quoted in, not the notion of the death penalty.
Just my two cents.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
So fucking awful. Anyone who can hear about a case like this and still support the death penalty is mentally ill.
"I'm totally pragmatic. That's why I think killing someone who may later be cleared by evidence is a better idea than imprisoning them."
Even if you have no moral issues with the death penalty, surely you can see in case of a mistake you can overturn a life prison is sentence, but you can't bring someone you executed back to life, right?
By that logic you cannot support anything that has ever failed. I can't support driving because you can kill someone doing it even correctly.
Remember, even if this man were not getting the death penalty (and obviously he shouldn't, the issue is that this isn't being stopped in the face of absolute fact of his innocence) he would be condemned to prison for life instead.
You guys act as though the alternative is a happy life of freedom, but when the process is fucked like that it isn't going to happen either way. He should not die, but he also shouldn't be in prison at all.\
Obviously. But if he were going to be released he would also not be executed.
It's funny how Gaf tends to work sometimes, people will come and decry the death penalty but then also run around talking about how George Zimmerman is a piece of shit that should die or what not, it's all two sides of the same coin. You accept the fallability of the system and work to correct that, I don't believe the punishment is incorrect I believe the fact that representation is so poor and that someone can get off in the face of clear evidence, or be sentenced to death even after it is clear that they are innocent, is the real issue.
Again, I don't believe we can ever get 100% accuracy, but I think the system should be flexible in how quickly it can adapt to new evidence (for or against) in a case instead of being steadfast with the original verdict. Until that happens you're going to have this same fucked up situation either way - death penalty or not the man's life would be ruined.
Again, you can't overturn the sentence of a man who is dead.
If you can't see the difference between something bad happening because of an accident and something bad happening because of bad policy then I don't know what to say.
SolicitorPirate
Member
It's rare to see a person so determined to bury their head in the sand.
If he's dead, then he has no chance of being released from prison alive. This should be obvious to you.
Jesus christ never seen so much green. For the record, I don't think this guy should die - fucking obviously. It's clear as day that he is innocent. I was responding to someone to quoted me over a week ago about a jury duty trial I was on and my experience in the ineptitude of public defenders - I think that is a very real flaw. I don't think the penalty is flawed. Those inept defenders will get their clients fucked regardless of what the penalty is.
And yet when he's not dead and it's clear that he is innocent he is STILL not being released or having the process stopped. That is what I'm saying is the issue.
And yet when he's not dead and it's clear that he is innocent he is STILL not being released or having the process stopped. That is what I'm saying is the issue.
minor effort
Banned
Any hope of exoneration ends the moment you end somebody's life.
The alternative is a chance of freedom. Death is terminal, prison is not.
phatmike128
Member
America, sort your shit out. Throw out these people in charge.
Things can change. Except for being dead. That's rather permanent.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
i think the death penalty should be reserved for the ultimate baddies(as in serial killer/mass murder/etc) with damning evidence...
not shit where theres a chance someones innocent for one murder. just my opinion of course
not shit where theres a chance someones innocent for one murder. just my opinion of course
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
The fuck comic books do you read?
Purported Comic Book Villain said:
This is an attack born out of your emotional reaction to the death penalty. It's akin to complaints about medical professionals using medical terminology in the Planned Parenthood videos. You reject that another side to this argument could possibly exist, so you project your own beliefs on anyone who disagrees, then construct a narrative to explain why they nevertheless support a different conclusion: they're evil.
That's not an argument. It's a personal attack.
These strawman arguments add nothing to a discussion. The death penalty doesn't target "random people." It targets people who have been convicted of a particularly heinous crime on the basis of very strong evidence.
But your sarcastic response suggests a useful analogy: in war, it is doubtless that hundreds or thousands of "random" innocent people will die or be seriously injured. But most people would agree that the benefits of war can outweigh the certainty of innocent casualties, and so everybody keeps an army.
Or, here's another analogy: in the U.S., a killing is justified when the killer reasonably believed that the killing was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to him- or herself or a third party. This standard all but guarantees that some innocent people will be killed--i.e., people who were not actually about to kill or seriously harm anyone else--and the law will treat that killing as justified. If you believed that you needed to use lethal force to avoid death or serious bodily injury, would you nevertheless refuse to because it's possible such force was unnecessary?
You might argue that the death penalty doesn't involve an imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury, or whatever it is that you believe can render a war justified despite innocent deaths, but that would miss the point. The point is that, in crafting social policy related to killing wrongdoers, we don't limit our options to only those that cause no innocent deaths. We always have to balance the risk--or the certainty--of innocent deaths against other factors.
Metaphoreus, are you a criminologist? If so, is "channeling society's bloodlust" a serious argument used in your field?
If not, then please stop comparing yourself to professionals and acting like your argument is anything more than an ugly excuse to satiate your own bloodlust.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
You completely misunderstand my argument. My argument is that the risk of executing an innocent person can be outweighed by the benefits afforded by the death penalty. Those benefits are:
You're complaining about one subpart (3) of one part (the benefits) of the argument, and you're getting it wrong, to boot. This is not "arguing from emotion;" it's recognizing an emotion and reckoning with it through a lengthy legal process that strips it of its worst excesses.
I must have missed the restriction in the TOS that limits discussion to those who are professionals in the pertinent field. Does that restriction disqualify you from asking the question you just asked? I'm going to guess that it does.
This is, again, an emotional attack.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
I used to support the death penalty. Growing up and witnessing how broken our criminal justice system is, and how even more broken it was in the past, I'd have to be naive or stupid to continue to do so.
He's conflating his appeal to authority with his personal feelings on bloodlust from what I've seen. Calling others emotional when you're stating things like "society needs to kill" is kind of a hoot.
He's conflating his appeal to authority with his personal feelings on bloodlust from what I've seen. Calling others emotional when you're stating things like "society needs to kill" is kind of a hoot.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Don't get sucked in, it never ends well.
RIP Mr. Glossip
RIP Mr. Glossip
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
You misunderstand the point of the analogy. The analogy is between complaints. You complain at my non-emotional approach to this topic; the people complaining about the way in which people on the Planned Parenthood videos describe abortions and their products are complaining at the latter's non-emotional approach to that topic.
If I were a criminologist wielding the arguments that typified my field, why on earth would I make that point via analogy? I'd say--were I also the sort of person who offers his own credentials to bolster his argument--"I don't know how much you know about criminology (I'm an expert)."
What appeal to authority? And how does one conflate an appeal to authority with personal feelings? I haven't offered any judgment on the moral status of social bloodlust, by the way. I've merely posited that it exists and that the death penalty offers a benefit by satisfying it in a way that protects its targets from its worst excesses.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
The justice system becomes a mockery if a single innocent person dies at its hand.
Good thing we don't have to worry about that, right?
Good thing we don't have to worry about that, right?
Rudimental
Member
This is begging the question. It starts by assuming a view of retributive justice that is consistent with the death penalty and then goes, "Look, the death penalty can be justified." This view of retributive justice is itself controversial, and all 4 claims here are very dubious, so acting as if you can just help yourself to them is extremely problematic. Each of these requires substantial argument or empirical support.
While your original point regarding the ability to support the death penalty on the basis of reasoned arguments stands, you're doing a really bad job of showing what that would look like.
One day when America finally gets over its violence addiction the rest of the states may get rid of something as barbaric as the state sponsored murder. I'm not sure it will in my lifetime, and I'm pretty sure that as such more innocents will die.
The moment the state decides as part of its justice system to murder one innocent person it ceases to be a justice system, it is no longer dealing with justice, it is dealing with vengeance lashing out at those tangentially related.
The moment the state decides as part of its justice system to murder one innocent person it ceases to be a justice system, it is no longer dealing with justice, it is dealing with vengeance lashing out at those tangentially related.
Alright.
(1) (i) is not true since, you know, these are life sentences. (ii) has been repeatedly demonstrated not to be true; "not contradicted by the evidence" refers to evidence that you rejected as an "appeal to authority", a concept in formal logic that is difficult to apply to the real world.
(2), (3), and (4) are the same thing. "Doing justice [by death]", "channeling bloodlust", "providing closure [through killing the criminal]". All of those are the realization of bloodlust, by any common defintiion. And a realization that does not need to exist, nor should be encouraged even when it exists. Bigotry, mob justice, and vigilantism are expressions of misguided emotion that eglatarian societies have rejected, to name a few.
U.S. Supreme Court denies final appeal.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/093015zr_886a.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/093015zr_886a.pdf
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-richard-glossip-explainer-20150930-htmlstory.html
- Status