Georgia Strikes A Blow For Sexual Equality

[dales]

....but it's relevant that he was not sentenced to LWOP, but to life with possibility of parole.

So were the defendants in the Manson case, after the DP was temporarily overturned in CA back in the 1970's.

Charlie's next date with the parole board is in 2027.......he's 80 years old.

[MajGenl.Meade]

MCALESTER, Okla. (KFOR) – An Oklahoma inmate was just minutes away from death when Gov. Mary Fallin stepped in to bring his execution to a halt.

Richard Glossip was scheduled to be put to death at 3 p.m. on Wednesday for the murder of Barry Van Treese. Glossip was convicted of Van Treese's murder, though Glossip was not the one who took his life.

The man who bludgeoned Van Treese to death, Justin Sneed, testified that Glossip hired him for the murder. The case was surrounded by controversy for an alleged lack of evidence for being based on the word of an admitted murderer. Throughout trials and appeals, Glossip maintained his innocence.

"The dying part doesn't bother me. Everybody dies, but I want people to know I didn't kill this man [Barry Van Treese]. I didn't participate or plan or anything to do with this crime. I want people to know that it's not just for me that I'm speaking out. It's for other people on death row around this country who are innocent and are going to be executed for something they didn't do. It's not right that it's happening. We're in a country where that should never happen," Glossip told NewsChannel 4 in an earlier interview. "They offered me a life sentence at my second trial. I turned it down because I'm not going to stand there and admit to something that I didn't do. Even though my attorneys said I was an idiot for turning it down because I could end up back on death row. I prefer death row than to tell somebody I committed a crime I didn't do."

His execution was stayed three times by the courts to review new evidence. In the days leading up to the execution, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals denied Glossip's request for a stay. On Tuesday, Glossip's team made a final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Just minutes before his execution was scheduled to begin on Wednesday, the Supreme Court denied those pleas for a stay.

According to the denial, Justice Steven Breyer was the one who was in favor of granting a stay. For his last meal, Glossip asked for Pizza Hut, Long John Silvers and Wendy's. There is a $25 limit on inmate's last meal requests.

So, there's an obvious question of injustice here.

If the stay is removed, does he get another $25 meal?

[liberty]

I am assuming this thread is about the death penalty in general, so I offer this: I saw it on sixty minutes. If the only evidence the prosecutor had was the word of the confessed killer, as presented on 60 minutes, I would never have voted to convict.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-mans- ... d=34147311

Oklahoma Man Granted Last-Minute Delay in Execution
By ABC NEWS
Sep 30, 2015, 9:43 PM ET
Oklahoma Department of Corrections/AP PhotosOklahoma Man Fights Death Sentence Day Before Execution Date



A man on death row in Oklahoma who was scheduled to be executed today received a last-minute stay of execution by Gov. Mary Fallin.
Richard Glossip was convicted of ordering the death of a motel owner in 1997, but he claims he is innocent and was framed by a former co-worker.
Fallin issued a 37-day stay of his execution to give the state's Department of Corrections and its attorneys the opportunity to determine whether potassium acetate is compliant with the state's court-approved execution procedures, the governor's office said in a statement. The new execution date is Nov. 6. Shortly before Glossip's scheduled execution, the U.S. Supreme Court denied his request for a stay of execution with only Justice Stephen Breyer dissenting.
“Last minute questions were raised today about Oklahoma’s execution protocol and the chemicals used for lethal injection,” Fallin said in a statement. “After consulting with the attorney general and the Department of Corrections, I have issued a 37 day stay of execution while the state addresses those questions and ensures it is complying fully with the protocols approved by federal courts.”
Key Dates in Legal Case of Death Row Inmate Richard Glossip
Kelly Gissendaner Executed in Georgia After Courts Deny Stay Requests
Glossip has received also support from Pope Francis. The personal representative of Pope Francis wrote a letter to Gov. Mary Fallin dated Sept. 19 asking her to commute Glossip's death sentence.
"Together with Pope Francis, I believe that a commutation of Mr. Glossip's sentence would give clearer witness to the value and dignity of every person's life, and would contribute to a society more cognizant of the mercy that God has bestowed upon us all," wrote Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the "personal representative of His Holiness Pope Francis to the United States of America."
Glossip has received support from well-known figures including actress Susan Sarandon and Sister Helen Prejean, who is an ardent opponent of the death penalty. A spokesman for Oklahoma Department of Corrections told ABC News that the execution was scheduled for 3 p.m. CT.
Glossip's execution at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary would be the first in the state since the Supreme Court upheld the state's three-drug lethal injection formula of Midazolam this summer.













Larry French/Getty Images Anti-death penalty activists rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court in a final attempt to prevent the execution of Oklahoma inmate Richard Glossip, Sept. 29, 2015, in Washington.more +
Glossip is accused of ordering the death of Barry Alan Van Treese, owner of the Best Budget Inn in Oklahoma City. Glossip was the motel's manager. Van Treese was found beaten to death in one of the motel's rooms on Jan. 7, 1997. Motel maintenance worker Justin Sneed, who is sentenced to life without parole, testified during Glossip's trial that he was promised $10,000 if he robbed and killed Van Treese.
In 1998, Glossip was sentenced to death, but in 2001 the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals overturned his conviction, saying that the evidence to support Sneed's testimony was "extremely weak," the Associated Press reported. However, in 2004, a second jury convicted Glossip and sentenced him to death. After his attorneys appealed that decision, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld his conviction in 2008.
Glossip's previous execution dates have been halted. On the eve of his execution earlier this month, his attorneys notified the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals that they had new evidence, including an affidavit from an inmate who said Sneed admitted to lying about Glossip's involvement in the murder. On Monday, the appeals court voted 3-2 that Glossip's new claims simply restate arguments raised in earlier appeals.
The governor added in her statement today: "My sincerest sympathies go out to the Van Treese family, who has waited so long to see justice done."

[MajGenl.Meade]

Paging Big RR.....

The stay was issued to give the authorities:

the opportunity to determine whether potassium acetate is compliant with the state's court-approved execution procedures

Apparently they hadn't had the "opportunity" before. Just as no one had had any earlier opportunity to raise those:

“Last minute questions.....today about Oklahoma’s execution protocol and the chemicals used for lethal injection”

Likewise, re the legal safeguards; yes, it does take some time to progress through them, but what's the rush? Why not be certain the laws and legal standards are complied with? Some guilty parties might well get off, but it makes it much less likely an innocent person will be executed.

Maybe you're right - this could be one of those cases. OTOH, when all else fails, just keep raising those last minute questions - wouldn't want to raise 'em too early in the process.

[Big RR]

Answering the Meade page--what's your point; they had a court approved protocol they were proposing to change, but there is no reason for the change given. So what? There is no argument that the potassium chloride execution is not humane, only that the new system they propose should be examined under similar criteria. And it is interesting to note that the governor, not the court, ordered the stay and review. I would think the state executive department could have done a review of the method and presented the results to the governor and the corrections department without any last minute questions raised by the person facing conviction; that they chose not to do so is not the fault of him or his attorneys.

But OK, there is a 37 day stay, after which he could sill be executed, presumably, with potassium chloride, or with the new drug if it is found compliant with the state law. And if the new drug is not compliant, they will have to use the old methodology, and can still execute him if that is their intention. And this is somehow a problem because?

[MajGenl.Meade]

There were several points (why do you seem so testy?) amongst which were:

Maybe a delay like this does give another chance to avoid a miscarriage of justice (this is agreeing with a point you made)

The questions were not raised in any timely fashion but are "last minute" - why is that? Surely not because nice people think "Oh we must make sure all is well" and then are shocked when... oh, a defense attorney for example suddenly says "I don't think they are, so prove it!" at the last minute. (This is a jab at the defense)

It appears the state has a court-mandated protocol etc. and presumably it had already had plenty of time to ensure that it was using the correct procedure. But now they need another 37 days to do so. Why had the state not already done that? (This is a jab at the state)

[Big RR]

Testy? Moi?

As for why the defense attorneys raised them at the "last minute", who knows? It may have been a last ditch effort that failed (at least in the courts that did not grant the stay), they may not have had notice about the method the state proposed to use (and maybe the state didn't decide until just now), who knows?

[Lord Jim]

Most of the G-20 believe that they have 'justice' without the death penalty. Perhaps it is just a matter of education.


yrs,
rubato

You may be right...

Hopefully we can educate the rest of the G-20 (and the EU, and other Western countries) into seeing the moral error of their ways.

[Sue U]

ICYMI:

1.Why do you favor capital punishment?

I have addressed this many, many times before, but the short answer is (because I don't have time for the long answer) is because as a general principal, a decent respect for the value of human life demands that those who commit premeditated murder make their own lives forfeit.

2.What goal does it achieve?

Justice.

3. What public policy interest does it serve?

See the answer to question 2.

4. How is it the best of all options?

Because it is the most just.

4.the guy who did the stabbing -- got a life sentence. So that's justice?

Certainly not. In a perfectly just world, he would have received the DP as well.

So your only metric for "justice" is "an eye for an eye"? Doesn't "a decent respect for the value of human life" include the value of the life of the murderer as well? Or is that now completely valueless?

[Lord Jim]

Doesn't "a decent respect for the value of human life" include the value of the life of the murderer as well? Or is that now completely valueless?

Absolutely the life of the murderer has value...

Which is precisely why justice demands that it be made forfeit...

If the life of the murderer had no value, then their being compelled to give it up would have no meaning.

That's the fundamental, central problem I have with DP opponents; they have the moral dimension of this exactly backwards...

So your only metric for "justice" is "an eye for an eye"?

You know, there's absolutely no value in having that as a basis for yet another discussion about this...

I know from long experience, (both on these boards and IRL) exactly how this goes...

I'll keep saying "justice" you'll keep saying "vengeance" and there will be absolutely no meeting of the minds...

[Sue U]

Please don't presume that you know anything at all about how a conversation with me will go; I am not interested in such a mundane and tiresome argument.

My question is, what is your metric for justice? Do you really think killing should be answered with killing in order to effect justice? For whom is this just? Why is it just? Don't respond with a tautology; that's just lazy and dull-witted. Provide an actual justification for your position: the goal it achieves, the public policy interest served, and its superiority to other options. Who knows, maybe you're right?

[rubato]

Please don't presume that you know anything at all about how a conversation with me will go; I am not interested in such a mundane and tiresome argument.

My question is, what is your metric for justice? Do you really think killing should be answered with killing in order to effect justice? For whom is this just? Why is it just? Don't respond with a tautology; that's just lazy and dull-witted. Provide an actual justification for your position: the goal it achieves, the public policy interest served, and its superiority to other options. Who knows, maybe you're right?

I think we need to narrow it back down to what are the arguments about justice with regards to the death penalty, or whatever we have which is the most severe penalty since many countries don't even lock people up for life for horrific crimes (Breivik got 21 years) .


Justice as social efficiency:

This is the argument that we should use the penalty which gives the best outcome at the lowest cost. If we were to discover that there was no reduction in violent crime if the maximum penalty was longer than 15 years then you would say that we should not sentence people to longer than 15 years. It also says that if you drag people into the street and shoot them in the head without trial and that produces the lowest crime levels that you should do that even though some number of people killed are innocent of wrongdoing.



Justice as a means of public harmony:

This is the argument that the penalties should be those which provide for the population as a whole some sense of 'justice done'. It is more descriptive of the cultural history, the morays and emotional reactions of the mass of people and in some ways a 'lowest common denominator' approach. If we use this we will have to admit that it is more driven by habit and custom and not at all by any theory of morality. This theory supports beheadings and amputations in a country with a history of using beheadings and amputations as morally equivalent to a small fine or a day in the stocks in places where that was the status quo ante. If you've ALWAYS cut people's hands off for stealing then cutting off the next one is justice and it is fairness because everyone was treated the same. Even-handedness, as it were.

An unenlightened person coming from one community which uses this theory is the most likely to be astonished at the practices of a different one. And this is the most common for societies driven by religions and other superstitions.


Justice as moral discovery:

Kant proposed that is was not the rules themselves which defined morality but the process by which we discover such rules. Rawls took that idea and applied it to a theory of Justice and said that the rules which were acceptable were those you would accept if you didn't know the details of your position in society at the moment when you were choosing.


In practice I think, we need to be cognizant of all three of these. Certainly we should should not have laws which are pointlessly expensive or ineffective (whether measured in cruelty or in dollars). And we must also understand that a society which, on the whole, actively supports the social order is one whose sense of justice is satisfied (to some degree) by the outputs of the justice system. And at the end we should, as people who claim to be moral, be actively engaged in the struggle to understand what the rules ought to be.


Sadism is an evil impulse and giving in to it is emotionally destructive even if there are 'extenuating circumstances'. What we give up today on behalf of tomorrow is how we measure the level of civilization of a community and how we measure our own morality.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

And then there's...

Genesis 9:6
Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.

Exodus 20:13
You shall not murder.

Exodus 21:12
Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death.

Leviticus 24:17
Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death

Leviticus 24:21
Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a human being is to be put to death.

Numbers 35:16
If anyone strikes someone a fatal blow with an iron object, that person is a murderer; the murderer is to be put to death.

Numbers 35:30
Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.

Numbers 35:31
Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. They are to be put to death.

[dales]

Oh, Meade......that's so O.T.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well, it was a system untroubled by self-induced, navel-gazing angst. I'm jus' sayin'

[Sue U]

So rubato's going with social efficiency, public harmony and moral discovery as the elements that define justice.

Meade is going Biblical in an argument from authority, yet he opposes the death penalty.

I was thinking more in terms of retribution, deterrence (both specific and general), rehabilitation, administrative costs and public morality, for starters. There are further considerations concerning the practical administration of a death penalty, but those don't necessarily affect the desirability of the death penalty itself.

Any other criteria or factors that should be considered?

(See, this is a more interesting discussion already.)

[Big RR]

Yep, a real town (rather nation) without pity.

sue--one of the reasons for criminal justice is to permit the public to express its reaction to the crime--a moral outrage, that should be weighed in (I do think that's one of Jim's major points). And although it wouldn't make a difference for me, for many the ability to carry out executions in a way that does not inflict unnecessary pain or suffering on the condemned person might well affect the desirability of the death penalty as a punishment.

[rubato]

So rubato's going with social efficiency, public harmony and moral discovery as the elements that define justice.

Meade is going Biblical in an argument from authority, yet he opposes the death penalty.

I was thinking more in terms of retribution, deterrence (both specific and general), rehabilitation, administrative costs and public morality, for starters. There are further considerations concerning the practical administration of a death penalty, but those don't necessarily affect the desirability of the death penalty itself.

Any other criteria or factors that should be considered?

(See, this is a more interesting discussion already.)

Those were just offered as some starting points. It is a much larger subject than that.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Another thing is that justice cannot require that we do something which is impossible.

Rwanda and South Africa could never ajudicate or punish the numbers of people who committed murders under Apartheid or during the Genocide. There are no resources to conduct the investigations and trials even if all other activity were stopped for years, there aren't the jails or people to staff them, and if the death penalty were applied they would wind up killing half the country.

The use of the truth and reconciliation commissions says that at the end of the day we can give up retribution, if we have to, along with all of the things which it is believed retribution accomplishes (deterrence for example), we can give up the pleasure of causing pain to someone who has hurt us, but we cannot let go of the truth. That is the one thing we must have.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

The truth is good, but is it enough? I don't think the truth accomplishes much if the status quo is retained. Imagine those who profited from the systematic robbery and extermination of jews and others at the hands of the Nazis were permitted to just say "sorry" and keep their ill-gotten gains. Or those profited by the systematic putting down of others (like in our own civil rights history) could just say "sorry" and retain their preferred status. I think justice demands more in the way of reparations and disgorgement of monies/advantages to address the ocncerns of the victims and society at large.

And still, the further, the justifiable outrage of a people is not addressed. Persons who were tortured and maimed or who lost loved ones at the hands of others may well demand more than the "sorry, let me be on my way". Not that any justice system should give them that eye for an eye, but how do we deal with this. We as a species do seem to focus a lot on revenge/punishment.