I don't the evidence even supports that conclusion. However, those would be much smaller crimes (probably obstruction of justice). If he actually participated in a coverup after the fact, it's much more likely that he would have admitted it, made a deal and testified against the actual murderer rather than claim complete innocence and be sentenced to death. That's just not how people behave in the real world.
Potentially innocent man about to be executed
- Thread starter Bob001
- Start date
I don't the evidence even supports that conclusion. However, those would be much smaller crimes (probably obstruction of justice). If he actually participated in a coverup after the fact, it's much more likely that he would have admitted it, made a deal and testified against the actual murderer rather than claim complete innocence and be sentenced to death. That's just not how people behave in the real world.
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
There was a case I believe that was covered on PBS Frontline about the war on drugs a few years ago.
A girl passes a order for drugs onto her brother. I believe she only passed the phone actually. It was a law enforcement sting. All of the other players involved could roll over on somebody else and got lighter sentences. She got the longest sentence because she had nobody she could roll over on.
I think innocent (yes, I realize she was not quite innocent) have similar issues.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
He would be an accessory after the fact, which is a pretty serious crime.
The jury agreed with your reasoning. If he were just covering it up afterwards, he would have said so. They concluded that the reason he was covering it up afterwards is that he was guilty of conspiring to make it happen beforehand.
As for "how people behave in the real world" or Samson's earlier "what rational man would...."
Well, there are lots of people in the world and some are irrational and some are very, very, stupid, and some are just plain evil. Any argument based on what a normal person would do has an element of circular reasoning in it. Whoever committed this murder was not a rational man, and does not behave the way normal people behave in the real world. To infer innocence base on the fact that normal people would not behave the way he allegedly behaved is to assert that he is a normal person.
Sure, but not nearly as serious as capital murder.
http://www.lacriminaldefensepartner...ter-the-fact-charges-explained-penal-code-32/
That only works if it is beyond dispute that he in fact knowingly helped cover up a murder. I don't agree that the evidence proves that. That is the claim of the actual murderer who made a deal to avoid the death penalty. My point is that if Glossip had anything he could give up to avoid conviction of capital murder, he would have done it, especially between his first and second trial.
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,377
In general, both the triggerman and the mastermind should receive equal, severe sentences.
If one is to get a more severe sentence, it should be the mastermind.
Actual guilt in this case aside, I don't think "it is unfair he gets death penalty while gunman gets only life."
If it were reversed, I'd think "The gunman got death penalty, good. The guy who hired him didn't? That is unjust."
If one is to get a more severe sentence, it should be the mastermind.
Actual guilt in this case aside, I don't think "it is unfair he gets death penalty while gunman gets only life."
If it were reversed, I'd think "The gunman got death penalty, good. The guy who hired him didn't? That is unjust."
Last edited:
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
I hate some of the attitude from Mary Fallon but my understanding is that the governor of that state cannot give a pardon of any kind (even death to life) without a board of pardon recommendation.
According to this, she can (only) grant a 60-day stay. But since the governor appoints the board, it's hard to believe they would execute someone over the governor's objections. It wouldn't cost her much to say something like "There are unresolved questions here. If he's guilty, life in prison is a sufficient punishment; if he's innocent, he'll be alive to try to prove it."
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
There may be something that she can do but you often find among conservatives this almost love of executing people.
While the state did not address witness intimidation claims in its most recent filing, it called Scott and Tapley’s statements “inherently suspect”, and pointed to the drug use and rap sheets of both witnesses as evidence they could not be trusted.
Which is the exact description of the assassins' prime witness, Sneed.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ie-wednesday-appeals-rejected-richard-glossip
Which is the exact description of the assassins' prime witness, Sneed.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ie-wednesday-appeals-rejected-richard-glossip
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
While it is indeed the claim of the actual murderer, it should not be mistaken that Sneed's testimony is the only evidence that Glossip had knowledge of the murder and was covering it up. His actions the day after the murder are most simply explained as a cover up. Specifically:
Not telling the police that Sneed told him he had murdered Van Treese.
Identifying one of the non-existent "cowboys".
Telling the housekeeper not to clean the rooms where Van Treese's body was laying.
As I said, I've given only a cursory look to the evidence, but it seems like he was covering up the murder.
If that's true, it's not the same as committing or conspiring to commit murder. It looks to me like the state is eager to kill this guy so he can't prove he was framed. He might well be guilty. But it sure hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
https://theintercept.com/2015/09/29/glossip-to-die-tomorrow/
http://www.sisterhelen.org/richard/?doing_wp_cron=1439043659.8464128971099853515625
But it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what juries do. Unless we want to say that "reasonable doubt" itself is embodied in each person who evaluates the case. By that standard we can never do such a thing, unless we get every last person on earth to agree. The fact that you or I might not agree with the jury doesn't change the fact that they did evaluate the evidence presented and decide the matter was "beyond a reasonable doubt."
The whole point of revisiting the case is to try and inject doubt that didn't exist at the time the verdict was rendered. The onus is on those who wish to alter the verdict with new evidence in play, not on anyone to retry the original case.
We should consider what type of evidence we are likely to find in a murder conspiracy case. Other than Sneed's testimony, there may be none at all. The jury thought Sneed was credible. Maybe they shouldn't have, but they did.
But at least one juror has publicly said he would have voted differently if he had seen the evidence that was never presented at Glossip's trial. A jury's verdict is presumed to be the result of a fair trial. But there are plenty of doubts about this one.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/juror-who-sent-richard-glossip-6448437
http://www.okcfox.com/story/2996330...-would-change-now-calls-for-stay-of-execution
And according to the Glossip defense web sites, a capital murder conviction requires supporting evidence under Oklahoma law. Should the claims of the actual killer be enough by themselves not just to convict someone, but to kill him?
Last edited:
Whether or not it was a fair trial is a matter for the judiciary, both during the original trial and on appeal. I don't think it's a combo challenge though - adding later doubt by a juror to assessments by judges to arrive at some combination that necessitates a re-do, when neither alone suffices.
There's a real question of what should be the concrete decision point. Whether or not the dictum, "justice delayed is justice denied" has any real substance. Establishing a "the buck stops here" end point is in play for both the jury verdict and the decision to finally carry out an execution. They have a similar feel of finality, and of course, in the case of execution, that's as final as it can get. Is finality a "good" or something to be avoided?
It seems to me that extending the process in the hopes of better overall outcomes can actually produce another type of harm. For example, we have cases of people being incarcerated for long periods while awaiting trial or some kind of resolution. And I think we generally feel that revisiting a case that resulted in a not-guilty verdict wouldn't be just, even if new evidence implies the defendant really was guilty. There seems to be some value in closing the books. But when?
Last edited:
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Aye, there's the rub. The two are inextricably intertwined.
How many bites at the apple? Well, enough to know we got it right.
How many is that? There's no way to tell.
How about a "reasonable doubt" standard? That's great, but who decides what's reasonable? A jury can decide that.
But what if I don't think the jury did a good job or were fooled? Well, the judiciary and the appeals process can decide that.
But what if I don't think they did a good job either? Well, there's always the Governor's office as a last resort.
But what if the Governor gets it wrong too? Well, we should do the best we can. But what's the "best we can" mean?
I can't have perfect justice if I perceive the system produces errors. No, you can't have perfect justice under those conditions. Are those conditions created by men and subject to revision, or do those conditions represent an uncomfortable fact about the world and about the availability of certainty?
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
I don't expect perfect justice, nor do I require it. However, when the DP is at stake I do expect the justice to be somewhat more perfect than it appears to be in this instance.
What, exactly, is the harm in commuting his sentence to LWOP?
It isn't a "get out of jail free" card.
The death penalty is considered just punishment for the offense committed. Not imposing it is neither more, nor less a harm than any other unjust result. But the basis is identically derived. If I say the sentence is unjust, I am making the same assertion - that "less just than is available" is a harm of some sort or other.
People may disagree as to what constitutes "doing the right thing" in this case. Yet, I don't think anyone wants to abandon the idea that doing the right thing is something worthwhile, and, conversely, not doing the right thing is to be avoided. Still, translating that bit of agreement into the language of "harms" may be difficult.
There are two aspects to this. One is against the death penalty itself, and the other is against applying the death penalty to this particular offender. Someone who is thoroughly convinced of his guilt might still not wish to see the death penalty imposed.
It's a terrible mistake to equate the two. It's not a question of what we feel. There is an absolute Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy (although sometimes people have been hit with different federal charges after walking at the state level). But we generally recognize that punishing, even executing, someone for something he didn't do is a terrible injustice that could befall anyone, and which we must guard against. We also recognize that not every crime results in an arrest, and not every arrest results in a conviction. We live with the fact that some criminals will get away with it. This case comes down to the word of a brutal murderer who made a (possibly coerced) deal to evade the death penalty. "Let's just finish it" is not a very compelling argument, especially when a life is on the line.