|
Evil Fluffy posted:Sadly this is looking like just a delay of the inevitable and not something that will in let him prove his innocence. Mind, a social media campaign can get pretty large in a month. Start a petition, write on progressive, anti-death penalty websites, maybe bring this injustice to light.
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 13:33 |
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:Mind, a social media campaign can get pretty large in a month. Start a petition, write on progressive, anti-death penalty websites, maybe bring this injustice to light. This case has already had national interest. Sister Helen Prejean has been aggressively getting the world out and some big names (Richard Branson, Susan Sarandon) have raised awareness of it. Mary Fallin doesn't give a poo poo; she just wants to satisfy her blood god.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Sadly this is looking like just a delay of the inevitable and not something that will in let him prove his innocence. Just to be clear (and I'm not saying you don't understand this, but others don't seem to) - because he was convicted of murder by hire and the person testifying was the person he allegedly hired to do it. It's dumb, but it's not like it was a case of "guy A actually did it but testified that guy B did it." Guy A did it and testified that he did it because Glossip told him to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I apologize for summoning fishmech, but its because juries are bad and trial by jury is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
CNBC put out their criteria for the next GOP debate, and Rand Paul and Huckabee are in trouble. Also PPP and USA Today/Suffolk aren't allowed to tamper with the results this time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
g0del posted:Juries are bad, but I'm not sure that replacing "trial by jury" with "trial by elected judge" would be much of an improvement. My ideal solution would be professional jurors; people with legal training who who observe the case while being left unidentified to either party or the presiding judge(s).
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Just to be clear (and I'm not saying you don't understand this, but others don't seem to) - because he was convicted of murder by hire and the person testifying was the person he allegedly hired to do it. I'm aware, and it's still only the word of a murderer and nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
The plebs won't fear the justice system if innocents arent executed once in a while. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I'm aware, and it's still only the word of a murderer and nothing else. What the gently caress do you think this is feudal Japan? Are we weighting testimony's truth based on social standing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:What the gently caress do you think this is feudal Japan? Are we weighting testimony's truth based on social standing? The state took the death penalty off the table for the murderer in exchange for his testimony. His testimony was self serving.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:My ideal solution would be professional jurors; people with legal training who who observe the case while being left unidentified to either party or the presiding judge(s). Yea that'll end well, a group of people sole selected from the people well off enough to have 'legal training' with no oversight (who the hell even selects them if the parties and judge get no say) not even having to acknowledge the person they're judging.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:My ideal solution would be professional jurors; people with legal training who who observe the case while being left unidentified to either party or the presiding judge(s). That's exactly what the Founders were trying to prevent, and not in a "hurf durf slaveowning aristocracy" sense either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Did jury trials in England back in the day allow commoners to serve on juries? The Framers didn't think the average slob on the street should be able to vote, I don't think they thought he should be able to serve as a juror either
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
How can one person's testimony, especially testimony received in return for a commuted sentence, ever push one "beyond a reasonable doubt"? How is there not reasonable doubt there?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Yea that'll end well, a group of people sole selected from the people well off enough to have 'legal training' with no oversight (who the hell even selects them if the parties and judge get no say) not even having to acknowledge the person they're judging. I guess you didn't notice the word 'professional'? By 'professional' I meant that they're hired and trained by a government agency. For selection, randomize it and don't let the court know exactly who's present.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I guess you didn't notice the word 'professional'? By 'professional' I meant that they're hired and trained by a government agency. For selection, randomize it and don't let the court know exactly who's present. Right, again, you're talking about people well off enough to have the education and free time and poo poo to do the training required as well as get into whatever training program to begin with. We're talking about replacing a not perfect but fairly broad (barring cases of cartoonish bullshit of course) reaching system with one that's literally only for the middle class and higher.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's exactly what the Founders were trying to prevent, and not in a "hurf durf slaveowning aristocracy" sense either. Got a quote on that one? Otherwise, I'm not sure I buy that the founding fathers meant 'peers' in any sense other than 'wealthy enough to take the day off, come into town, and judge people'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:The state took the death penalty off the table for the murderer in exchange for his testimony. His testimony was self serving. Why do you assume the jury got to know this fact?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Got a quote on that one? Otherwise, I'm not sure I buy that the founding fathers meant 'peers' in any sense other than 'wealthy enough to take the day off, come into town, and judge people'. And what happens once that finite group of professional, trained jurors gets corrupted or threatened?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Just to be clear (and I'm not saying you don't understand this, but others don't seem to) - because he was convicted of murder by hire and the person testifying was the person he allegedly hired to do it. And if you read the case files, Glossip did some really dumb stuff at the beginning of the investigation and didn't tell the truth about Sneed right out of the gates. Still, there's not nearly enough evidence to say this is a good DP case (not that any really are).
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Right, again, you're talking about people well off enough to have the education and free time and poo poo to do the training required as well as get into whatever training program to begin with. We're talking about replacing a not perfect but fairly broad (barring cases of cartoonish bullshit of course) reaching system with one that's literally only for the middle class and higher. You don't get to bar cases of cartoonish bullshit when that describes basically every high-profile murder case in the USA (and probably far more cases where the details simply aren't readily available).
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why do you assume the jury got to know this fact? I don't, but it was known during his many appeals, at least according to the article posted further up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's exactly what the Founders were trying to prevent, and not in a "hurf durf slaveowning aristocracy" sense either. Yeah, the idea was basically a sort of argumentum ad um... not-authoritarium. They thought if basically a group of hicks who can't understand how to poo poo and miss their feet could understand the state's complicated case, it'd be evident that the defendant was really guilty - additionally they thought this would force the state to speak in such a way that the defendant could understand the entire case being brought against her. Lawyers speaking to trained jurors would get very buddy buddy and be able to speak above the accused.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I apologize for summoning fishmech, but its because juries are bad and trial by jury is dumb. Could you expand on this? I get criticisms about the specific way we do trial by jury (juror pay, juror selection, etc), but I've never seen someone say that trial by jury itself is bad before. edit: this is what I get for not refreshing the page VikingofRock fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Spite posted:And what happens once that finite group of professional, trained jurors gets corrupted or threatened? What happens when Darren Wilson gets a 75% white jury in a 67% black city? Jury selection is already highly corrupt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Judges more often override juries to give the death penalty as opposed to judges overriding juries to give life in prison. So I wouldn't trust judges to be better than juries given the task. fool_of_sound posted:I don't, but it was known during his many appeals, at least according to the article posted further up. But that's not a fact being appealed?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But that's not a fact being appealed? Two of appeals were based on the fact that his lawyer didn't properly cross-examine or contest the murderer's testimony.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Got a quote on that one? Otherwise, I'm not sure I buy that the founding fathers meant 'peers' in any sense other than 'wealthy enough to take the day off, come into town, and judge people'. Read Federalist # 83.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:Just fyi that's not an actual scalia quote - as a layperson doing some digging, the sentiment appears to be "look if we took appeals just because a dude is innocent that'd be heaps of work and whatchagonna do, y'know?" Not exactly. Scalia's bit in the concurrence in Hererra v. Collins (which is what I think you're referencing) about work of lower courts was written because he thought the way the majority reached its decision would leave lower courts obliged to consider arguments that he didn't think they should have to. The majority opinion assumed something for the sake of argument (that someone could make so persuasive a showing of innocence that their execution would be unconstitutional), then said the guy in that particular case didn't make a sufficient showing. Scalia thought the court should've just disagreed with the argument presented and said no, the Constitution doesn't require consideration of that evidence. Note the part where he explains why he was OK with joining the majority opinion: quote:...because I can understand, or at least am accustomed to, the reluctance of the present Court to admit publicly that Our Perfect Constitution lets stand any injustice, much less the execution of an innocent man who has received, though to no avail, all the process that our society has traditionally deemed adequate. With any luck, we shall avoid ever having to face this embarrassing question again, since it is improbable that evidence of innocence as convincing as today’s opinion requires would fail to produce an executive pardon. So while it may not be an actual quote, I don't think it's an unfair way to characterize his position. We can infer from the Troy Davis habeas decision that he doesn't have enough votes backing him. Not that that will be much consolation to Troy Davis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Did jury trials in England back in the day allow commoners to serve on juries? The Framers didn't think the average slob on the street should be able to vote, I don't think they thought he should be able to serve as a juror either There was an income from property requirement, though it was loose/somewhat ignored in lots of places. Probably more than you want to know about European juries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Juries are used not because they are good but because they are a break on government power and take unpopular bad decisions out of the hands of the sovereign. Getting it right is lower down on the list.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
This shouldn't surprise anybody, but states that chose not to expand Medicaid coverage created even bigger holes between the program and the ACA.  The full breakdown of uninsured Americans in the age of "Obamacare" courtesy of 538.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Juries are used not because they are good but because they are a break on government power and take unpopular bad decisions out of the hands of the sovereign. Getting it right is lower down on the list.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
alcyon posted:Just curious. Is the Trias politica not a cornerstone of the US system? It is on the federal level, but not necessarily on the state level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I'm aware, and it's still only the word of a murderer and nothing else. Was the jury even allowed to know that? There's a lot of things you can and cannot tell the jury to avoid creating bias just like you're describing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Michael Bennet is the luckiest loving guy in the whole god damned loving world. After the GOP lost their best shots earlier this year, they thought they came up with another really good possible winner in George Brauchler (prosecutor in the aurora shooting trial). Well, that's not an option anymore either. http://www.denverpost.com/election/ci_28901660/brauchler-wont-seek-u-s-senate-bid-leaves Seriously, Bennet is terrible but holy gently caress is he lucky.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Goddam it, Secret Service. Way to make that lying toolbag Chaffetz a victim. quote:Report finds Secret Service official suggested leaking congressman's file
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Was the jury even allowed to know that? There's a lot of things you can and cannot tell the jury to avoid creating bias just like you're describing. I'd imagine it would have been pretty hard for them not to know. I don't see how you can say to a jury "this guy paid me to murder a dude and I did" without implicating yourself in the process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Radbot posted:How can one person's testimony, especially testimony received in return for a commuted sentence, ever push one "beyond a reasonable doubt"? How is there not reasonable doubt there? Well Oklahoma did ban AP US History  hello zoux, doubt is unknown to them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 13:33 |
|
|
Alligator Horse posted:This shouldn't surprise anybody, but states that chose not to expand Medicaid coverage created even bigger holes between the program and the ACA. Looks like the only solution to the insurance problem is to get to work you lazy proles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:26
|
|
