Oklahoma postpones executing innocent man (but only because they ordered the wrong f*cking drug)

Well, it's not a fact that's he's an innocent man. He may be. He was found guilty twice though, right?

From what little I know about the case, I think maybe the jury convicted without sufficient evidence, but even allowing that this is the case, it still doesn't mean he is innocent.

I don't want to say anything, just noting that he is not innocent as a matter of fact. He may be. He may not be. Either way, he could still have gotten an unfair trial, no?

robeiae said:

Well, it's not a fact that's he's an innocent man. He may be. He was found guilty twice though, right?

From what little I know about the case, I think maybe the jury convicted without sufficient evidence, but even allowing that this is the case, it still doesn't mean he is innocent.

Click to expand...

Which is why if we're going to keep the death penalty, we need to have a different standard of proof then an ordinary trial.

Beyond a reasonable doubt sounds great, but the concept of what exactly "reasonable doubt" consists of is murky to say the least. Clearly you can't have the criminal justice system where people go free unless jurors are convinced beyond any conceivable doubt. There's always going to be some little thing that doesn't quite make sense, but on balance, jurors get it right almost all the time.

But "almost" isn't good enough in a capital case. With the hundreds of thousands of lawyers out there, you think someone could come up with a better definition of what standard of proof it would require to impose the death penalty.

raburrell said:

Yeah, I can agree with that. As I said, I'm using the term innocent as 'did not in matter of fact commit the crime he was convicted of committing'. Clearly, that's different from his legal status.

Given the serious doubt on the matter, not to mention the alleged prosecutorial misconduct, to me, the state's conduct is shameful and heinous.

Click to expand...

I don't know that I'm following you/you're following me. He claims to be innocent. But he may be lying. He may be guilty as sin. So he's not an "innocent man."
That doesn't mean the trials and verdicts were fair.

rugcat said:

Which is why if we're going to keep the death penalty, we need to have a different standard of proof then an ordinary trial.

Beyond a reasonable doubt sounds great, but the concept of what exactly "reasonable doubt" consists of is murky to say the least. Clearly you can't have the criminal justice system where people go free unless jurors are convinced beyond any conceivable doubt. There's always going to be some little thing that doesn't quite make sense, but on balance, jurors get it right almost all the time.

But "almost" isn't good enough in a capital case. With the hundreds of thousands of lawyers out there, you think someone could come up with a better definition of what standard of proof it would require to impose the death penalty.

Click to expand...

I agree.

This one is pretty messy, but I agree he should not be executed, especially because it is so messy.

I think Glossip was involved in the case. But Sneed was the one who actually did the beating. I'm not certain when Glossip became involved. This one needs to be commuted.

robeiae said:

Well, it's not a fact that's he's an innocent man. He may be. He was found guilty twice though, right?

Click to expand...

I will admit that I'm not certain on this, but I'm under the impression that the burden of proof is different when appeals than with trials. It's no longer enough to say that there's a reasonable doubt about a person's guilt--there has to be strong exculpatory evidence or evidence that the case was mishandled beyond a hope of giving the accused a fair trial. My understanding is that appeals courts are not obligated to throw out convictions just because it looks likely that the accused is innocent. If you got a "fair" trial originally and you don't have extremely good evidence (like new DNA evidence that indicates someone else did the crime), then you're out of luck.

From what little I know about the case, I think maybe the jury convicted without sufficient evidence, but even allowing that this is the case, it still doesn't mean he is innocent.

Click to expand...

Honestly, even if he's guilty and you agree with the death penalty, he should not be executed. If there's this much room for doubt, innocent people are going to be executed. It's better for a guilty person to go free because they could not be legally found guilty than for an innocent person to go to prison or be executed.

ETA: Something else I wanted to mention--this is a good example of how illogical plea deals can be. The man whom we know committed this murder received life in prison because he claimed that the murder was Glossip's idea and that Glossip paid him to do it. Glossip, who maintains his innocence, is sentenced to death. Though I think it can make sense to take factors such as remorse and admittance of guilt into account when sentencing, plea deals are not a good measure of how much remorse a suspect has, and a system that pressures people to confess to save their lives or get a more favorable sentence is not just.

robeiae said:

Well, it's not a fact that's he's an innocent man. He may be. He was found guilty twice though, right?

From what little I know about the case, I think maybe the jury convicted without sufficient evidence, but even allowing that this is the case, it still doesn't mean he is innocent.

Click to expand...

But we don't prove innocence in US courts. Defendants only have to be not guilty.

he identifies as innocent.

Hapax Legomenon said:

But we don't prove innocence in US courts. Defendants only have to be not guilty.

Click to expand...

So what?

The thread title:

[h=2]Oklahoma postpones executing innocent man[/h]

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Again, that's not true as a matter of fact. Maybe he is innocent, maybe he is guilty (of the crimes for which he was convicted). Either way, the issue--from what I've read--is whether or not he was given a fair trial. And I think there's a strong case to be made that he was not.

DancingMaenid said:

{T}his is a good example of how illogical plea deals can be.

Click to expand...

And it's...interesting, I guess, that the woman executed yesterday in Georgia was in the same position.

Gissendaner arranged to have her husband killed by Greg Owen, who stabbed Doug Gissendaner in the neck and back. Owen testified against Kelly Gissendaner as part of a plea bargain that got him a life sentence instead of death.

Click to expand...

I think if anyone is going to be executed for involvement in a murder, then all parties should be. If one shouldn't be, then none of them should be. That's a little simplistic, I know, but sometimes these things need to be reduced to simple. Then again, I'm completely against the death penalty anyway.

raburrell said:

I think if you'll scroll through a page or two of those around here, they're not always noted for accuracy.

Click to expand...

I took you at your word when you said you only intended it as your opinion. I only noted it again because Hapax seemed to not get it. But okay, roll your eyes.

Perhaps if we finally decided to become civilized and stop executing people....

rugcat said:

Which is why if we're going to keep the death penalty, we need to have a different standard of proof then an ordinary trial.

Click to expand...

This, exactly. I'm on record here (and been criticized for it, which is okay) for expressing my view that I'm not categoricaly opposed to the death penalty. But, it gets applied by certain states (Oklahoma being one of the most notorious) in a kind of blanket way for certain convictions which aren't really justified, and this is just one such example. Baja Oklahoma (aka Texas) is even worse. You can add Florida and Missouri pretty easily to this list.

Which gets us into the stark disparity among state laws concerning the death penalty. More than 1/3 of the 50 states don't even have a death penalty on the statutes. A bunch which still do haven't executed anybody in a long time. So executions are concentrated in a minority of states.

Given what we now know about the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the even less-reliable testimony of incarcerated informants who get benefits from ratting out others, I think some national standard needs to be invoked regarding a death penalty even being possible in a criminal trial.

For me, it's hard to argue that certain famous criminals (Ted Bundy, John Gacy, John Muhammad, Timothy McVeigh, for example) didn't deserve the death penalty. But that standard of horribleness is pretty high. To continue to allow the windy politics of individual states to determine who dies and who does not is a travesty in the U.S.

caw

cmhbob said:

And it's...interesting, I guess, that the woman executed yesterday in Georgia was in the same position.



I think if anyone is going to be executed for involvement in a murder, then all parties should be. If one shouldn't be, then none of them should be. That's a little simplistic, I know, but sometimes these things need to be reduced to simple. Then again, I'm completely against the death penalty anyway.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I can see how someone might argue that making a deal is a sign of genuine remorse, but if someone is genuinely remorseful, they won't need the promise of something in return before they do the right thing.

Deals are offered to increase the prosecutor's conviction rate, and winning should not be mistaken for justice, even in cases where the convicted party really is guilty.

DancingMaenid said:

My understanding is that appeals courts are not obligated to throw out convictions just because it looks likely that the accused is innocent. If you got a "fair" trial originally and you don't have extremely good evidence (like new DNA evidence that indicates someone else did the crime), then you're out of luck.

Click to expand...

This is more or less true. What appeals courts consider is generally ONLY material in court transcripts, and the bases for appeals generally need to be arguments about erroneous rulings, impermissible prosecution behavior (such as withholding evidence) etc., as present in the transcripts. New evidence not known or admitted at trial has to be VERY strong, and typically a witness recanting isn't good enough.

caw

rugcat said:

But "almost" isn't good enough in a capital case. With the hundreds of thousands of lawyers out there, you think someone could come up with a better definition of what standard of proof it would require to impose the death penalty.

Click to expand...

I agree that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a shitty standard when considering the death penalty. I was just talking about this with a friend in regard to this case. An "unreasonable" doubt isn't necessarily an invalid one, after all. Crazy, "unbelievable" shit happens. It would seem that when seeking to execute someone, there should be a requirement of absolutely indisputable evidence.

raburrell said:

At a bare minimum, I'd like to see the standard of guilt made higher as well, but it doesn't touch the fairness issues, the way certain prosecutors use it as a career/re-election move, etc.
Therefore,

this.

Click to expand...

I actually have no problem with the idea of executing people. I have a problem with the execution of executions, so to speak. My objection is a practical one, not an ideological one. I don't think execution is uncivilized at all, but human beings being what we are--generally prone to screw-ups, prejudice, etc.--we simply can't be trusted to get it right.

The thought of prosecutors being morally impoverished enough to use executions as a career stepping-stone, for instance, actually makes me think some of our civil servants are not civilized enough to be trusted with the responsibility of capital punishment.

Jcomp said:

I actually have no problem with the idea of executing people. I have a problem with the execution of executions, so to speak. My objection is a practical one, not an ideological one. I don't think execution is uncivilized at all, but human beings being what we are--generally prone to screw-ups, prejudice, etc.--we simply can't be trusted to get it right.

The thought of prosecutors being morally impoverished enough to use executions as a career stepping-stone, for instance, actually makes me think some of our civil servants are not civilized enough to be trusted with the responsibility of capital punishment.

Click to expand...

This is pretty much where I stand. I don't have a moral objection to execution per se. I think there are people who deserve to die. But I do not trust our justice system. I'm not sure if I'd trust any justice system, but certainly the one we've got now is not concerned with truth and justice where capital punishment is concerned.