How much motive does a guy have to cover up for a murder that he’s not involved in, and for some random employee? The fact that he was willing to go to some lengths to cover it up strongly suggests that he was involved.
Because Glossip expected that Sneed would just do the head bashing part and he (Glossip) would take care of the rest. And if Sneed managed to mess up the head bashing part, then Glossip could just pretend to not be involved. What he didn’t expect was that Sneed would get his part done and he (Glossip) would mess up on his end.
Sneed was the murderer. It’s not surprising if a murderer’s story changes a few times. It is surprising if someone who has no involvement changes his story a few times.
Which is why my default assumption about anti-DP rants like the OP is that they are making it up.
They basically show what the court system would look like if the prosecution weren’t allowed to present a case or rebut an alibi.
Arguing on principle (like RickJay has done) is one thing. Lying is something else.
:shrugs: Once the appeals court finds this latest load of recycled bullshit to be without merit, the lawyers will switch to “capital punishment is cruel and unusual because general anesthesia doesn’t work” or something.
Apologies, bup. I didn’t mean to take any sides on your OP. I don’t know enough about the case to know if your presentation is accurate or not, and I’m sorry that I came across as I did.
Mostly, my issue is with taking a single instance of perceived inaccuracy and using it to justify the premise that all DP opponents are always inaccurate. Which I kinda think Shodan does.
There’s a difference between “default assumption” and “always”.
And the inaccuracy is not merely a perception. One of the things that pinged my BS detector is the statement that this assclown was convicted when there was no other evidence besides the accomplice’s statement. And a bit of superficial Googling reveals that, gosh-a-roonie, there was other evidence, and that evidence was sufficient to convince two different juries beyond any reasonable doubt.
Anti-DP proponents generally-but-not-always do one or both of two things -
[ul][li]Re-present the defense case without anyone being under oath or anyone to cross-examine or rebut, or[/li][li]Present startling new evidence that Some Other Dude (who is usually either dead and can’t defend himself, or has never been identified or shown to exist) Really Did It.[/ul]I venture to guess that the second is what they are trying now - twenty years after the fact, and after his co-conspirator is safely away from the death penalty, it suddently occurs to him that everything he said about Glossup was a complete lie. [/li]
Uh-huh.
Media players and amateur advocates tend not to be the most balanced and reliable reporters on any topic. I don’t think the death penalty is an exception there. I don’t trust the facts presented by any issue advocate to be a fair presentation of both sides.
But I think the actual professionals who do this work are a lot more reasonable than you suggest, Shodan. Bryan Stevenson is one of the country’s foremost campaigners against the death penalty, and his cases do not fit your description. I highly recommend reading Just Mercy. It is quick and easy reading, and whether you agree or disagree with his perspective, is a presentation of the some of the strongest arguments against the current version of the death penalty.
The objective is to kill the person. Making the final minutes of their experience more pleasant is not a priority for me. Frankly, this would all be a lot easier if we just went back to nooses and axes.
Hell, let’s go ahead and use the rack! Or pressing, that’s always good for a larf. We can put it on TV; I reckon the bidding war should end up with a tasty paycheck to help support law enforcement.
Peine forte et dure: not just for Medieval Europe any more!
Or to put it in terms that might resonate with someone like Smapti, the condemned in these cases has not been sentenced to torture. Such wanton infliction of pain exceeds what the authorities have ordered.
That is correct. There’s no need to make the execution more painful than it needs to be, but pretending that the process of executing a human being should be clean, sterile, and bloodless has more to do with assuaging our own squeamishness than it does with any sort of idea that we’re being “humane” about it. A well-executed hanging or any number of other methods can kill a person quickly and with a minimum of pain, and that’s the route we’re going to end up going down at this rate.
That’s correct. In addition, I’m not specifically looking for anyone to be tortured either. But if the question is whether I’m concerned about murderers not being “fully sedated”, the answer is that I’m not concerned about it.
Agreed. Let’s not pretend to make it so clinical just to make squeamish citizens feel better about the killing. As long as we’re going to disproportionately execute black men for crimes against white women, let’s do it the old-fashioned way: with a noose. Right?
You may not approve of the use of race as a factor, but you support a punishment that is applied far more frequently to black murderers than white ones, and even more frequently when the victim is white instead of black.
The racial disparities in the use of the death penalty are one of the strongest reasons for repealing it.
It is, however, race-baiting to assert racial motivations when none are present. Which is what you’re doing here.
Irrelevant. If a person deserves to die for their crimes, then they deserve to die for their crimes. The fact that Person X didn’t get the punishment they deserve does not mean that Person Y shouldn’t get it either.
No, the racial disparities in the use of the death penalty are one of the strongest reasons to oppose racial disparity in sentencing. It has no bearing on the justness of the death penalty.