“This mistake will become the thing you are best known for”

https://twitter.com/search?q=%40GovMaryFallin&src=typd

That doesn't mean, however, that we should give up. We should be more careful about taking away life and freedom, and we should seek to make prison more fulfilling, so that people can have fuller lives when we deem them safe to be let out (because we discovered our error, or because they were rehabilitated).

But some events are more reparable than others. Releasing a falsely accused man from prison after 20 years doesn't give him those 20 years back, but it gives him back the rest of his life.

And suggesting that because all events are irreparable, all events are thus morally equivalent is morally reprehensible.

The victim and family's side

Later on, the prosecution notes the lack of violence while in jail as evidence for guilt because "he knows we've listed ... that he will be violent. He's not stupid." So his violence or lack thereof while imprisoned both count towards his guilt. That's just wrong.

On the other side, his story doesn't seem to hold up to much. Not that this is good enough to deal death to him, but one can see where the prosecutor is coming from. The guy admitted to covering up the murder, and there doesn't appear to be any plausible excuse.

This is actually not a good argument at all in-favor of the death penalty for this person but rather another great argument for its elimination entirely.

The field of neuroscience based psychiatry and the works of the great minds like Robert Sapolsky must prevail. This has to stop.

That's quite debatable.

I'm not sure I even believe that the boss who ordered a kill is even guilty of a crime. If his subordinate didn't actually pull a trigger then no crime would be committed. How can one person's crime be a function of another person's actions. It just doesn't compute.

Or psychiatric treatment.

Did you really just say that? If someone is locked away and their conviction is overturned, we can always let them out. However, we cannot dig them up after we kill them.

There's no evidence that he "masterminded" the crime, but there's still his own admission linking him to the murder.

It seems he's facing the death penalty due to ordering the murder, and that part shouldn't stick because of one person's testimony. But throwing that part out, he wouldn't have been found innocent by anyone.

  * Does the murderer get any benefit from identifying this
    guy (reduced sentence, etc.)?
  * Does the murderer have any motive?  That article
    implies that robbery was the motive, this could be 
    substantiated by looking at what he took, how much it
    was worth, and whether he'd have any reason to target
    this guy otherwise.  For example whether he ignored any
    obviously better targets of opportunity to get this 
    specific person.
  * Did the murderer know things about why Glossip 
    allegedly wanted this guy dead that he couldn't
    reasonably have known otherwise?
  * This was allegedly murder for hire:  did Glossip give 
    this man any large amounts of money and if he did, was
    there any other explanation?  Has he given out large
    amounts of cash before?
  * Does the murderer have any psychiatric or drug-induced 
    conditions that make him see things that aren't there?
  * Are there any provable lies in either person's story or 
    any history of lying to investigators in the past?  If 
    so, are the lies better explained by confusion or 
    self-protection?
  * Did Glossip ever know things he shouldn't have known 
    about the murder?

That said, I would think that they really shouldn't go for the death penalty if they don't have direct evidence, that just seems like too much. But they could, in theory, have answers to the above that eliminate reasonable doubts about his guilt, or lack thereof.

That aside, I am wary of the techie bias of ignoring motives entirely and looking only at physical evidence. Death Note, of all things, illustrates the difference the best, with Light always taking pains to produce no physical evidence, while L counters this with deep insight into his motives. We saw a lot of that with Reiser, as I recall.

In the end, though, I lack sufficient data to claim to have any reasonable idea about whether Glossip is innocent or guilty. All I'm saying here is that it shouldn't be the case that it's somehow unknowable or unverifiable given enough investigation into the questions posed above.

-----

EDIT: Another comment pointed to this: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6244.pdf

I can see lots of places to corroborate (or disprove) the story -

> Sneed said that he and Glossip went to room 102 to make sure Van Treese was dead.

This could have left physical evidence (or witnesses).

> He found an envelope with about $4000.00 cash under the seat. He came back and swept up the glass. He put the broken glass in room 102, just inside the door. He said that Glossip took the envelope from him and divided the money with him. He also testified that Glossip helped him put a shower curtain over the window, and he helped him cover Van Treese’s body.

There may be physical evidence left by this (or not), not to mention the money & envelope (fingerprints?).

> D-Anna Wood testified that she and Glossip were awakened at around 4:00 a.m. by Sneed. She testified that Glossip got out of bed and went to the front door. When he returned, Glossip told her that it was Sneed reporting that two drunks got into a fight and broke a window. She testified that Glossip then returned to bed.

This seems to say that Sneed is lying, unless D-Anna has some motive for protecting Glossip. Given that they're in bed together, and given the following, it's not implausible that she was protecting him.

> [Billye Hooper] asked Glossip about the car, and Glossip told her that Mr. Van Treese had left to get supplies for remodeling rooms.

This is highly suspicious.

> Cliff Everhart, who worked security for Mr. Van Treese in exchange for a 1% ownership, was already at the motel. He told Sneed to check all of the rooms. Sneed indicated that he did so.

This is also really suspicious. He really should've known this guy was dead by then, but it really looks like he's avoiding it. And there are two people poking holes in his story.

> Subsequent searches revealed that Sneed possessed approximately $1,700.00 in cash, and that Glossip possessed approximately $1,200.00. Glossip claimed this money came from his paycheck and proceeds from the sale of vending machines and his furniture

This corroborates Glossip's story, though we'd have to see if there was any merit to Sneed's alibi or not. One could look for physical evidence around the money, etc.

However, the primary evidence we have that Glossip ordered the killing is the testimony of the guy who actually did the deed, and who avoided a death sentence in exchange for that testimony. It's a little fishy.

However, Glossip admitted to covering up the murder. He's not innocent, by his own admission.

Indonesia executed a multi-national group of people five months ago.

Saudi Arabia beheaded an Indonesian maid with no legal representation five months ago, a group subject to so much abuse that Indonesia made it illegal to move to Saudi Arabia to become a maid.

In weeks nobody will remember Glossip either, least of all people getting their news from reddit.

In weeks state-sponsored execution will still be a national sport in these countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country

Citizens of those countries won't even remember to be embarrassed, let alone who the victims are.

When people express their dissatisfaction with Obama's progress on freeing non-violent criminals, remember how much nuance was granted to those responsible for San Francisco's and California's decisions to show restraint in imprisoning Mr. Sanchez or how much nuance was granted to Dukakis. The teams working on commuting nonviolent Federal sentences spend an enormous amount of time vetting prisoners and are extraordinarily conservative.

It's probably good due diligence, but freeing one Willie Horton or one Francisco Sanchez is enough to severely damage a candidate, a party, or even the concept of criminal justice reform.

From this angle, assuming no other considerations, the legitimacy of the court system hinges on how often we see revenge killings. One could argue that the U.S. is more civilized now, so discouraging revenge killing is a fairly minor consideration.

The real problem with them is whether there are better ways of accomplishing the goal of reducing crime.

But, even so, now I don't think its one of the top 20 things most people -- whether they are generally pro- or anti-Clinton -- think about when they think about Bill Clinton, so it doesn't seem to support the "this will be the thing you are known for" idea too well.

That's why I'm trying to separate the issues. I'm confused about why this case is getting particular attention.

"Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

It does not erode MY respect for life.

It does not diminish MY humanity.

There are far more convincing anti-death-penalty cases than this one.