Capital punishment is stupid. There's really no basis for it but retribution, and "deterrence" is not an effective argument in its favor. Anyone can understand the emotional appeal of "cutting evildoers down in the midst of their sins," but capital punishment isn't that at all. It usually takes place DECADES after the offense, and there is often considerable doubt that the prosecutors have convicted the right person. Arguably, some criminals deserve to be put to death for their violent, vicious acts against others, but it simply can't be done consonant with maintaining basic human decency and turning the state into a "tinkerer with the machinery of death." In this instance, it's even worse. They already tried to kill this man, and they failed. Trying twice is a cruel abomination.
This, on Governor Stitt's website: "Welcome to the Great State of Oklahoma, where we believe in protecting and preserving individual freedoms." Is that sarcasm?
If overturning Roe proved so easy and satisfying, imagine how ruling the death penalty unconstitutional would be. I'm looking at you, ACB, because I've read your tortured attempts to distance your Catholic self from this issue. You could end that torture now.
The case should never have gotten this far, but there's a whole bunch of procedural bullcrap (when you can file an appeal, number of times you can file, etc.) that came into play. Nonetheless, the fact that Sneed's mental illness wasn't known to Glossip's defense should make all of that moot.
In Brady v. Maryland (1963), the Supreme Court held that prosecutors must turn over evidence that is “favorable to an accused” if the “evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”
Additionally, in Napue v. Illinois (1959), the Court held that “a conviction obtained through use of false evidence, known to be such by representatives of the State, must fall under the Fourteenth Amendment.” This rule applies, moreover, “when the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears.” So, under Napue, the prosecution should have corrected Sneed when he falsely testified that he’d never seen a psychiatrist.
Well if they were real Catholics they'd be against the death penalty in all cases. It's been official doctrine since 2018 - in the catechism and everything. Official position is no abortion no execution.
Us liberal types are more no death penalty but personal choice and bodily autonomy so still heretics.
Said another way, SCOTUS doesn't really like ruling in a way that might suggest courts and the justice system are human and fallible- omg they'd rather (other people) die.
It removes the rationale for having a judiciary in the first place. It establishes that some judges should be put to death for the safety of the public.
That is EXACTLY the correct way to read into that. They are inhumane, and so disconnected from the lives of everyday people as to render us meaningless in their eyes. We are hash marks on a score sheet. 😡
Just fucking abolish capital punishment. This shouldn’t be hard to understand—if there is a nonzero possibility of an innocent being put to death (and of fucking course there is, the instant case among many examples), then capital punishment cannot be permitted.
That's why people like you and I don't have stupid money. Nobody with a really decent heart and a measure of empathy is able to even attain so much wealth when there are so many people in obvious need around us.
If they murder an obviously innocent man then they 'deserve' the death penalty. It's just crazy.
There must be a better way of letting innocent people out of prison and giving them a truckload of cash and a fulsome apology than this reliance on governors and parole boards doing the right thing.
Just do what all the other supposedly civilised countries do and get rid of it. It isn't a deterrent and it's classist and racist. In the countries where it's been abolished the murder rates are generally lower than the US.
We could always make bribing a federal judge with a free RV punishable by the death penalty and see how quickly Clarence Thomas changes his fucking mind about it.
Capital punishment is stupid. There's really no basis for it but retribution, and "deterrence" is not an effective argument in its favor. Anyone can understand the emotional appeal of "cutting evildoers down in the midst of their sins," but capital punishment isn't that at all. It usually takes place DECADES after the offense, and there is often considerable doubt that the prosecutors have convicted the right person. Arguably, some criminals deserve to be put to death for their violent, vicious acts against others, but it simply can't be done consonant with maintaining basic human decency and turning the state into a "tinkerer with the machinery of death." In this instance, it's even worse. They already tried to kill this man, and they failed. Trying twice is a cruel abomination.
Why doesn't Mr. Glossip just declare he is running for president and has Total Immunity (C) (TM)?
No one can touch you then.
But if we let one innocent man live, we risk having to let many innocent men live.
This, on Governor Stitt's website: "Welcome to the Great State of Oklahoma, where we believe in protecting and preserving individual freedoms." Is that sarcasm?
Freedom from being murdered by the state just because you did not commit a crime is not one of those individual freedoms that is protected.
If overturning Roe proved so easy and satisfying, imagine how ruling the death penalty unconstitutional would be. I'm looking at you, ACB, because I've read your tortured attempts to distance your Catholic self from this issue. You could end that torture now.
She's not mainstream Catholic. Not that your religious views should matter when you are a sitting judge.
Aunty Covid Bitchette has no problem being evil. It goes with her Catlick faith.
I cannot fathom what decades in prison would do to the psyche of a person who knew they were innocent.
Gulilty or innocent, decades in prison does damage.
The case should never have gotten this far, but there's a whole bunch of procedural bullcrap (when you can file an appeal, number of times you can file, etc.) that came into play. Nonetheless, the fact that Sneed's mental illness wasn't known to Glossip's defense should make all of that moot.
https://www.vox.com/scotus/2024/1/22/24046857/supreme-court-death-penalty-richard-glossip-oklahoma
In Brady v. Maryland (1963), the Supreme Court held that prosecutors must turn over evidence that is “favorable to an accused” if the “evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”
Additionally, in Napue v. Illinois (1959), the Court held that “a conviction obtained through use of false evidence, known to be such by representatives of the State, must fall under the Fourteenth Amendment.” This rule applies, moreover, “when the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears.” So, under Napue, the prosecution should have corrected Sneed when he falsely testified that he’d never seen a psychiatrist.
This should be a no-brainer with all of the Catholics on the court right? They're not afraid to be pro-life anymore!
"If there were no death penalty how would we have gotten Jesus?"
There, squared the circle for ya.
Well if they were real Catholics they'd be against the death penalty in all cases. It's been official doctrine since 2018 - in the catechism and everything. Official position is no abortion no execution.
Us liberal types are more no death penalty but personal choice and bodily autonomy so still heretics.
They only do that before you’re born. Afterwards, they really enjoy killing you.
Said another way, SCOTUS doesn't really like ruling in a way that might suggest courts and the justice system are human and fallible- omg they'd rather (other people) die.
It removes the rationale for having a judiciary in the first place. It establishes that some judges should be put to death for the safety of the public.
That is EXACTLY the correct way to read into that. They are inhumane, and so disconnected from the lives of everyday people as to render us meaningless in their eyes. We are hash marks on a score sheet. 😡
Just fucking abolish capital punishment. This shouldn’t be hard to understand—if there is a nonzero possibility of an innocent being put to death (and of fucking course there is, the instant case among many examples), then capital punishment cannot be permitted.
If I had stupid money, I would hire the best representation money can buy for every defendant charged with a capital crime.
That's why people like you and I don't have stupid money. Nobody with a really decent heart and a measure of empathy is able to even attain so much wealth when there are so many people in obvious need around us.
Billionaires should not exist.
That is absolutely the truth. I heard the other day that they're predicting the first trillionaires inside of ten years time. Fun.
I'll be stunned if they don't kill him anyway.
If they murder an obviously innocent man then they 'deserve' the death penalty. It's just crazy.
There must be a better way of letting innocent people out of prison and giving them a truckload of cash and a fulsome apology than this reliance on governors and parole boards doing the right thing.
Just do what all the other supposedly civilised countries do and get rid of it. It isn't a deterrent and it's classist and racist. In the countries where it's been abolished the murder rates are generally lower than the US.
We could always make bribing a federal judge with a free RV punishable by the death penalty and see how quickly Clarence Thomas changes his fucking mind about it.
Y'know, with votes.
This is a fucked up place to live.
"meth-head maintenance man Justin Sneed"
Sounds right out of a true crime style novel!
More Carl Hiassen than Truman Capote
Isn't the shit head governor's hands full with his war against the tribes?