When you read this Richard Glossip will probably be dead.

by The Rebel 41 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  OrphanCrow

  Sahs: “OrphanCrow”: “The FACT is innocent people are put to death,”

  Sigh. Here we go again. I did not say that. Please...check the quote and reference the correct poster.

  No, Dr. Phil chose to highlight this case because it is compelling as an important sociological, legal justice, and human rights/fairness issue which potentially impacts all of us.

  Reading this article may give you another perspective on the case:

  http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/richard-glossip-case-here-s-the-story-of-his-victim/article_1247f4c4-a8be-5492-b438-1c5d39c8b571.html

  From that article:

  “The issue is whether a man who has been given every opportunity provided by our legal system should be given another 60 days to do what his attorneys could not do in nearly two decades. … Talk shows, Hollywood, and petition campaigns should not be allowed to undermine the authority given by our Constitution to our courts.”
  
• 

  The Rebel

  The following statement is worth reading twise:-

  " This court has never held that the constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a fair trial, BUT IS LARTER able to convince a court that he is actually innocent" Antonia Scalla ( Supreme Court)

  Furthermore I am not claiming to be smarter than the Governor of Oaklahoma, who says:-

  " We find none of the material to be credible evidence of Richard Gossips INNOCENCE"

  The Rebel:- But surely that is the wrong way around? Isn't it criminal guilt that needs to be established " beyond a reasonable doubt?" Credible evidence of innocence is great, but doesn't taking the uncoraberated statement of a confessed killer as the only basis for a death sentence raise reasonable doubt?

  The list of people who received the death sentence and were later esonerated would make a long thread. Now I am not saying Richard is innocent. Truth is I don't know. But public opinion spoke out yesterday, because people do know the " evidence" in this case is simply not suffient for capital punishment.

  The Rebel.
• 

  The Rebel

  I believe that if a death sentence is to be carried out:-

  A) There should be absolutely no doubt the accused is guilty beyond doubt.

  B) If there is the slightest possibility that a person is innocent they should not proceed with the execution.

  In this case there is no physical evidence, and a sentence based on hear say. So why should the death penalty apply?

  The Rebel.
• 

  The Rebel

  I

  I am not being sentimental nor idealist, particularly as I have now read scripts of the police interviews from both Richard and a co-worker.

  Anyway having since started this thread, Richard escaped the lethal injection with hours to spare. But it was only rescheduled and in two weeks time I believe he will be put to death.

  Which made me think if had an imaginary past, with different circumstances, my life would be different. I get where politics come in. I also get how 16 years in to the future a person can be a different person. This is why In one life time i believe every person must be able to live two life's.

  However as I also said in two weeks I believe Richard will be put to death. Do I believe that is correct?

  No.

  Why?

  Because 12 innocent people have been freed from death role in Texas since 1977 ( Statistics state by state database)

  I believe no man should be put to death based on hear say and without physical evidence.

  Why?

  Because it's convicting the poor who who can't afford a decent laywer. Even the poor innocent individual deserve good representation against an experienced prosecution team and a jury of 12 well meaning but sincere people.

  My point is if Richard had money for a good defence in this case, he would be a free man today. I am not saying that makes it right. What I am saying is guilty or not, what this man has gone through with twise being spared execution at the final hour only to go through the fatal inevitable execution in two weeks time is abhorrent.

  Why does Oaklahoma give the death sentence when there is no physical evidence and a " conviction" based on hear say?

  If the state want to execute people why not execute those, where there is absolutely no doubt, the accused is guilty beyond doubt? If so executions would be carried out with less public drama.

  The Rebel.

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
• 

  SAHS

  This case has really been a stark and disturbing eye-opener for me. All through my life I have been led to believe that everyone in our western democracy is “innocent until proven guilty.” But in just the last couple of years, hearing about people having all their cash stolen by the police – which is apparently perfectly legal now – just on the suspicion that it might, or could, be involved in some kind of criminal activity, but with absolutely no proof; and hearing about people getting their legitimate businesses shut down and accounts seized just because their deposits are suspiciously just under the $10,000 amount for mandatory reporting by the bank – again, with no proof whatsoever; and then hearing about cases like Richard Glossip, it seems to me that the “presumption of innocence” which has been so integral to our so-called democratic legal system is now just regarded as hooey and thrown right out the window.

  What is happening to good old common-sense fairness and justice based on traditional “natural law”? It seems that now we basically don’t really have any rights at all anymore. The government doesn’t care anymore about justice and fairness – everything now is just all more and more arbitrary bureaucratic rules and restrictions, which much of the time don’t even make sense! Disturbing and scary!
• 

  The Rebel

  In a 3-2 decision the Oaklahoma court of criminal appeal, yesterday ruled the state can proceed with Richards Glossips execution (tomorrow) Wednesday.

  So 3 judges say yes and 2 judges say no. Not exactly unanimous was it?

  The Rebel.
• 

  The Rebel

  This is an off topic post.

  If you were falsely accused, and the circumstantial evidence against you strong, would you feel confident in trusting the system and risking a death sentence or would you accept a plea deal?

  The Rebel.
• 

  sir82

  Apparently they are planning to appeal to the US Supreme Court.
  
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Good last post, Rebel.

  And I would have to answer "no" to your question - I wouldn't risk a death sentence.

  I think this thread is the reason why I don't believe in the death penalty: in the heat of the moment with someone obviously guilty, it's easy to say "kill him!" (e.g. Dylan Roof or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) but I think life imprisonment is much better. It may give the criminal a chance to reflect on their crimes, express sorrow or improve themselves. And those wrongfully imprisoned can be released when new evidence comes to light, etc.
• 

  LisaRose

  I used to be for the death penalty, but I have come to believe it does more harm than good because:

  Innocent people are sometimes wrongfully convicted.

  The death penalty is often not carried out, leaving the convicted and the families of their victims in extended limbo.

  They don't seem to know how to put people to death without making them suffer.

  It costs more to put someone to death than to keep them incarcerated.

  I would be fine with keeping the death penalty if it were reserved for very, very unusual cases where the evidence was overwhelming, where the crime was extremely callous and violent and where the method used to execute was without pain or suffering and if all cases were fast tracked through the system, taking no longer than two years. This would be for people like Ted Bundy and the Aurora theater shooter.

  I believe the death penalty is a holdover from a time when society was more primitive and lifetime incarceration was difficult and cruel to the incarcerated. In this time it serves no real purpose, it doesn't reduce or prevent crime and it seldom brings closure to the family of the victims. It also should not be decided state by state, what we have now is a patchwork of laws that vary considerably from state to state. Death penalty cases, if we must have them, should be decided on a federal level.