• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oklahoma will execute innocent man

S

solletica

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
6,073
Reaction score
926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The following illustrates how conservative states practice the "right to life". . .

Sanctity of Life | Mary Fallin for Governor

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin on Tuesday denied a stay of execution for a convicted murderer despite a plea to put off Wednesday's scheduled lethal injection from those who say the state may be putting to death an innocent man.

No physical evidence tied Glossip to the crime, his lawyers said, adding he was convicted largely on the testimony of Justin Sneed, then 19, who confessed to carrying out the killing and said Glossip hired him to do it. Sneed is serving a life sentence.

Oklahoma governor denies stay for man set to executed on Wednesday - Yahoo News
Click to expand...
 
Luftwaffe said:
Gossip hired someone to murder another person.

Lol needle Rekt, he's not innocent by any means.
Click to expand...

Jail house informants and co-defendants are notoriously unreliable witnesses. They lie like rugs especially when it means saving their own hides. That's not to say Gossip didn't hire him but I'd be skeptical if that was the only evidence.
 
solletica said:
The following illustrates how conservative states practice the "right to life". . .

Sanctity of Life | Mary Fallin for Governor
Click to expand...

I guess the moral of the story is, if you have someone killed in a conservative state, and you are caught, you may be held accountable. Do it in a liberal state where they may call you "innocent" and set you free.
 
Gaius46 said:
Jail house informants and co-defendants are notoriously unreliable witnesses. They lie like rugs especially when it means saving their own hides. That's not to say Gossip didn't hire him but I'd be skeptical if that was the only evidence.
Click to expand...

I was facetious from the start. I deleted it because I figured people would take it legitimately. The fact that he was convicted on nothing other than one witness's testimony is semi retarded. The jury must have had nothing more than a high school education.
 
Luftwaffe said:
I was facetious from the start. I deleted it because I figured people would take it legitimately. The fact that he was convicted on nothing other than one witness's testimony is semi retarded. The jury must have had nothing more than a high school education.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I should have realized that since you're usually a reasonable guy.
 
ocean515 said:
I guess the moral of the story is, if you have someone killed in a conservative state, and you are caught, you may be held accountable. Do it in a liberal state where they may call you "innocent" and set you free.
Click to expand...

Except there's no real proof he hired him. So I guess the lesson is "hope no one says you hired out a murder in a conservative state because they'll execute you without proper evidence".
 
Ikari said:
Except there's no real proof he hired him. So I guess the lesson is "hope no one says you hired out a murder in a conservative state because they'll execute you without proper evidence".
Click to expand...

A jury of his peers believed otherwise. Along with the myriad of others who likely had to review the case, along with the Governor. So I would suggest you are likely quite mistaken about the evidence thing.
 
jury of his peers thought otherwise OP.

if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

/thread
 
solletica said:
The following illustrates how conservative states practice the "right to life". . .

Sanctity of Life | Mary Fallin for Governor
Click to expand...

well if he hired another guy to do the killing, there will be no physical evidence tying him to the crime scene.....his lawyers using that as a statement is moronic

now if he was convicted by a jury of his peers with zero other evidence, then he "might" have a case

was there a money trail?
 
ocean515 said:
A jury of his peers believed otherwise. Along with the myriad of others who likely had to review the case, along with the Governor. So I would suggest you are likely quite mistaken about the evidence thing.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. It seems pretty easy to end up on death row in certain states, as this book and film make abundantly clear. This is why, as I get older, I become less enamoured of the jury system. These days evidence can be so technical, and legal arguments so complex that it's unreasonable to assume just anyone can come to a reasonable and sound verdict.

Get rid of jury trials; they're no longer fit for purpose.
 
Andalublue said:
I don't think so. It seems pretty easy to end up on death row in certain states, as this book and film make abundantly clear. This is why, as I get older, I become less enamoured of the jury system. These days evidence can be so technical, and legal arguments so complex that it's unreasonable to assume just anyone can come to a reasonable and sound verdict.

Get rid of jury trials; they're no longer fit for purpose.
Click to expand...

And what? Trial by bench?

Everyone has the right to trial by jury, and if unless I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure you can not exercise that right if you choose to do so.

EDIT

In fact, you can waive that right, you can have a trial by bench for even serious charges.

So your whole post is null, it's already an option.
 
Ikari said:
Except there's no real proof he hired him. So I guess the lesson is "hope no one says you hired out a murder in a conservative state because they'll execute you without proper evidence".
Click to expand...

did you read the trial transcript, or just winging it on that statement?

the jury apparently heard enough for their conviction

what do you know that we dont?
 
Luftwaffe said:
I was facetious from the start. I deleted it because I figured people would take it legitimately. The fact that he was convicted on nothing other than one witness's testimony is semi retarded. The jury must have had nothing more than a high school education.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, of course. By a four paragraph news article you're now an expert on how retarded the trial was. You know NOTHING. Don't get that wrong. And for our OPer who somehow manages to make our jury system political...ridiculous.

How many appeals did this guy exhaust? Were they all Republican jurists? What was the condemned man's motive? What was the killer's motive? Did they track money or favors from the condemned man to the murderer? Did the state corroborate the hit man's testimony? Was the guy robbed or just killed? Could they tie the two men together? You know nothing.

The fact that you completely buy this story based on the few details about the trial provided questions YOUR education level, not the jurors'.

It's scarey, I tell ya'. Just scarey.
 
solletica said:
The following illustrates how conservative states practice the "right to life". . .

Sanctity of Life | Mary Fallin for Governor
Click to expand...

If you are just reading a web page about this for the first time and not intimately familiar with the case and trial, it would be difficult to take your claim of innocence seriously. From what you've posted it would seem that these two were responsible for the death of another. Society would miss neither of them.
 
Andalublue said:
I don't think so. It seems pretty easy to end up on death row in certain states, as this book and film make abundantly clear. This is why, as I get older, I become less enamoured of the jury system. These days evidence can be so technical, and legal arguments so complex that it's unreasonable to assume just anyone can come to a reasonable and sound verdict.

Get rid of jury trials; they're no longer fit for purpose.
Click to expand...

Having served on juries before, I can attest to the fact that one can leave from the experience believing there has got to be a better way. If pressed, I would have to agree with you about the jury system in general. However, there seems to be little evidence such a change would have any impact on the matter described in the OP. Far too many people involved in appeals, etc., to suggest the original conviction was reached in error.
 
ocean515 said:
A jury of his peers believed otherwise. Along with the myriad of others who likely had to review the case, along with the Governor. So I would suggest you are likely quite mistaken about the evidence thing.
Click to expand...

Jailhouse informants lie. They are unreliable. They are often given consideration for their cooperation. Juries usually don't hear any of that.

Maybe he's guilty. I don't know. But wrongful conviction based on lies told by people in jail is hardly unheard of.
 
ocean515 said:
Having served on juries before, I can attest to the fact that one can leave from the experience believing there has got to be a better way. If pressed, I would have to agree with you about the jury system in general. However, there seems to be little evidence such a change would have any impact on the matter described in the OP. Far too many people involved in appeals, etc., to suggest the original conviction was reached in error.
Click to expand...

Have you read that Grisham non-fiction book? There were many, many stages of that case where an injustice was compounded and ignored for so many good and bad reasons. It certainly didn't leave you feeling very confident about the Oklahoman judicial system. Do you think there's much reason to believe it has improved much in recent years?
 
MaggieD said:
Oh, yeah, of course. By a four paragraph news article you're now an expert on how retarded the trial was. You know NOTHING.
Click to expand...

It's "You know nothing Jon Snow."

Get it right :)
 
ocean515 said:
A jury of his peers believed otherwise. Along with the myriad of others who likely had to review the case, along with the Governor. So I would suggest you are likely quite mistaken about the evidence thing.
Click to expand...

I'm an Okie, I followed this trial, it was local news here. A Texan with a past history of violence and a drifter lifestyle was convicted of the murder. He at first denied anyone else was involved, refused to repeat his testimony at the second trial, the 'motive' could never be produced, and Glossip had no past history of any violence and had managed several fast food places before the Hotel, he received bonuses for his work at the hotel prior to the murder.

Now the appeal system doesn't retry the whole affair, it simply looks for issues that hindered a fair trail- say the DA not handing over evidence to the defense.

So what I would advise folks is if you ever get charged with murder in Oklahoma- HIRE a lawyer, a court appointed one will only make sure you get a trial before they hang you... :shock:
 
ocean515 said:
A jury of his peers believed otherwise. Along with the myriad of others who likely had to review the case, along with the Governor. So I would suggest you are likely quite mistaken about the evidence thing.
Click to expand...

Except a jury of peers doesn't mean there was evidence, and from all the reports, it seems that the prosecution had nothing but hearsay. So I would suggest you are likely quite mistaken about the evidence thing.
 
ocean515 said:
Having served on juries before, I can attest to the fact that one can leave from the experience believing there has got to be a better way. If pressed, I would have to agree with you about the jury system in general. However, there seems to be little evidence such a change would have any impact on the matter described in the OP. Far too many people involved in appeals, etc., to suggest the original conviction was reached in error.
Click to expand...

The fact of there being a great number of appeals is irrelevant. One witnesses testimony is legally sufficient in our legal system, and appeals courts cannot judge a witness's credibility. So the appeals courts could only deal with technical challenges, the quality of the evidence against him would not have been relevant to the appeals process.
 
Ikari said:
Except a jury of peers doesn't mean there was evidence, and from all the reports, it seems that the prosecution had nothing but hearsay. So I would suggest you are likely quite mistaken about the evidence thing.
Click to expand...

The testimony of a co-conspirator isn't hearsay. It shouldn't have been accepted by the jury, but it isn't hearsay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom