[HN Gopher] Oklahoma court won't stop Glossip execution
___________________________________________________________________
Oklahoma court won't stop Glossip execution
Author : iudqnolq
Score : 44 points
Date : 2023-05-01 21:38 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.lawdork.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.lawdork.com)
| brookst wrote:
| "We're going to execute an innocent man, and it is his own fault
| because his defense failed to successfully impeach the state's
| only witness, who we now know was either lying or insane."
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| This of course is predictable and a scenario that
| Massachusetts, at least, planned for in its law on first degree
| murder (which at one point was a capital offense). The highest
| court of appeal there is empowered to reweigh the evidence or,
| even if the evidence of guilt was adequate, act on the basis of
| "any other reason that justice may require...." [1] The law
| avoids the worst result of a high court dodging responsibility
| for a miscarriage of justice. Doesn't perfect justice (part of
| the reason there is no death penalty under Massachusetts law)
| but does require the high court to own the result.
|
| [1]
| https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleII/Ch...
| mulmen wrote:
| Well, we don't know that he is innocent. Just that he didn't
| receive a fair trial.
| GavinMcG wrote:
| This is just the court following the law Oklahoma has enacted,
| which does not give it the power to act here. It's not forcing
| anything--it's doing the _nothing_ it 's empowered to do. If
| Oklahoma wants its court to have the power to grant relief, it
| can change its law. (Or better, just get rid of the death penalty
| entirely.)
|
| The statute in question ([0] - see (D)(8)) says the court _may
| not consider the merits or grant relief_ unless there are facts
| or legal rationales that _could not have been raised earlier_.
| The court isn 't empowered to do something just because two
| parties agree.
|
| Also, the governor can commute the sentence, as he did for Julius
| Jones.
|
| [0] https://casetext.com/statute/oklahoma-
| statutes/title-22-crim...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > The court isn't empowered to do something just because two
| parties agree.
|
| It can find executing an innocent person to be unconstitutional
| under the Eighth Amendment, and that the statute preventing
| review of the case on its merits is similarly unconstitutional
| as a result.
| ternaryoperator wrote:
| Since the governor has given multiple reprieves, can he not grant
| clemency to avoid the miscarriage of justice? Does the governor
| not have that power in Oklahoma, as he does in most other states?
| scarface74 wrote:
| Only the government has a "monopoly on violence" and this is the
| same government that too many people want to give more power
| to...
| biomcgary wrote:
| This is an interesting situation where the judicial system seems
| truly out of control. Republicans are generally more likely to be
| in favor of the death penalty, but the attorney general and
| governor are Republicans that have intervened because they
| believe that justice is being miscarried. Nevertheless, the
| appeals court is forcing an execution. Perhaps the panel of
| judges is using stare decisis to conclude: "you had your chance
| to present the truth before, but didn't, so too bad". If the
| entire political spectrum disagrees with the judges, it makes a
| clear case that the problem is the system. I hope the governor
| will grant pardon or clemency if the court won't reconsider.
| mulmen wrote:
| Clemency seems like the correct remedy here. The court only
| interprets the law as it is written. The system has a failsafe
| for this situation. Clemency is that failsafe.
|
| This is yet another example of why legislatures need to
| eliminate capital punishment. It's something we have to get
| right 100% of the time, and that is impossible.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > The court can't just decide to not enforce the law.
|
| The court doesn't enforce anything; that's the executive's
| job. They _can_ decide the law is unconstitutional, and thus
| _unenforcable_.
| mulmen wrote:
| You're right. Updated.
| mason55 wrote:
| > _where the judicial system seems truly out of control_
|
| I don't think this is true at all. The judicial system is
| following the laws that the legislature has laid out. Unless
| the laws are unconstitutional (which no one seems to be
| arguing) then this is actually a case where the judicial system
| is 100% not out of control. And, in fact, nothing gives them
| the power to act here, so they aren't acting. All they've done
| is refuse to step in to a spot that has no place defined for
| them.
|
| > _it makes a clear case that the problem is the system_
|
| Yes, but the system that's the problem isn't the judges. It's
| the law that's been decided upon and never fixed. The judges
| can't just decide that they aren't going to enforce the law
| unless someone is arguing that the law itself is invalid, which
| no one is doing.
|
| It's an unfortunate situation but it's one with a real remedy.
| The remedy is not "courts ignore legislature," it's "governor
| grants clemency or pardon."
| bee_rider wrote:
| One possibility I guess could be for the state to put "don't
| murder innocent people" in their constitution. It just seems
| like an odd caveat to need.
| mulmen wrote:
| In this case the man _is_ guilty in the eyes of the court
| and there is no mechanism by which they can reevaluate that
| decision given this new information. The problem is the law
| does not give them this ability and that the death penalty
| is a possible outcome. Neither of these are problems the
| court can fix. The solution here is on the legislature and
| executive.
| giantg2 wrote:
| 'it's "governor grants clemency or pardon."'
|
| And "legislature changes laws"
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| gist wrote:
| I don't understand why people seem to think that it's in
| societies benefit as a whole to have a perfect system. A perfect
| system would be to spend any amount of money so that every person
| accused of every crime that could not afford a lawyer had enough
| money to be able to hire the absolutely best legal help instead
| of whatever help is typically afforded. Or just the same those
| who help now (of let's say less skill) have less work or more
| resources so they can mount a better defense.
|
| Unfortunately that is not possible. And yes if you don't have
| money (for any reason (ie bad luck, wrong family upbringing
| endless list) you often get the short end of the stick.
|
| Noting also that I am almost certain that nobody making a comment
| has read much about this case other than small parts of it and
| assuming that in the end the right thing is not happening here.
| The fact that the attorney general and the Governor think it
| should not happen doesn't mean it should not happen (as you don't
| fully know their thinking or their motivations).
|
| Bottom line: Money does not grow on trees. There are resources
| and not everyone will get a fair shake (when skill is involved).
|
| I was watching something on TV other night (Dateline or 2020 or
| like that network) and some family was not happy because a
| murderer was offered a plea deal. They just did not understand
| why there would not be a trial they wanted to see the best
| possible bad outcome for the person who murdered their family
| member. Sure that is fine but resources unfortunately and money
| means that prosecutors often (again for the greater good) have to
| cut deals. So no it's not all about your pain and your situation
| 'money does not go on trees'. (And the fact that they for other
| reasons might fight another case doesn't change that ie 'life is
| not always fair').
|
| Easy for people on the sideline reading to be idealistic about
| how things should work.
| bananapub wrote:
| > I don't understand why people seem to think that it's in
| societies benefit as a whole to have a perfect system.
|
| OK? then it seems pretty obvious the corollary is "don't let
| the imperfections lead to the state murdering people".
| macintux wrote:
| "Innocence is no defense." Such a broken system.
| mulmen wrote:
| The system seems to be working just fine. The justice system
| interprets law as enacted by the legislature. This is the
| balance of power. The governor can still issue a pardon to stop
| the execution because it is the executive's job to enforce the
| law. The legislature can change the law to avoid this situation
| in the future. The solution here isn't to give judges absolute
| power.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Dear God, in what world is the current system "fine". 2-10%
| of the _incarcerated_ population is innocent. My own minor
| experiences with the courts has uncovered extreme
| incompetence on even minor issues, and a system that grants
| judges damn near the absolute power you mention. There 's
| practically no oversight and the system is designed to hide
| mistakes and misconduct (judicial review boards).
|
| "The solution here isn't to give judges absolute power."
|
| It's seems all parties are on board - defense, prosecution,
| etc, so it would not be absolute power.
| mulmen wrote:
| There is already a remedy here. The executive can simply
| decide not to go through with the execution. There's not
| benefit to allowing judges to selectively interpret the
| law. The price of that precedent is too high. If you think
| the system already makes poor decisions (I agree) then the
| solution is certainly not to give judges even more power.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "There's not benefit to allowing judges to selectively
| interpret the law."
|
| I agree, but they already do.
|
| When the entirety of the system has failed and it's down
| to the executive, that's a problem. We want a system
| that's fail-safe, not fail-fatal.
| evilotto wrote:
| "[The Unites States Supreme] Court has never held that the
| Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who
| has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a
| habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." -- Antonin
| Scalia, dissenting on 08-1443 In Re Troy Anthony Davis
| macintux wrote:
| Thanks, that was the quote that I was too frustrated to
| search for.
| bananapub wrote:
| it's just surreal that the US, land of the free, home of the
| brave, by and large tolerates the state just straight up killing
| people, denying them the most trivial of rights, that of "not
| being murdered". even aside from the deeply flawed judicial
| system that leads to so so many people being executed despite not
| having even committed the claimed crime, it's bizarre they're so
| far behind almost all of the rest of the western world.
| 121789 wrote:
| I sort of agree with the overall sentiment of this (I oppose
| the death penalty for many reasons), but this does seem like a
| mild exaggeration. Less than 20 people get the death penalty
| per year in the US, and they are isolated in a few states
| (mostly Texas)
| mulmen wrote:
| Capital punishment is a legal penalty in 27 of 50 states. But
| the most populated states do not have capital punishment as a
| legal penalty. So it is not true that "by and large" the US
| tolerates this penalty. The trend is clearly toward abolishing
| the death penalty.
| iudqnolq wrote:
| The titles is a reduced version of the following quote.
|
| > Since the State now agrees that the only witness to allege that
| Mr. Glossip was involved in this crime cannot be believed, it is
| unconscionable for the court to attempt to force the State to
| move forward with his execution.
| Blahah wrote:
| The second part of the title, after the comma, says the
| opposite of what your quote says.
| daveguy wrote:
| The State and the Court are two completely different things.
| The United States depends on an independent Judicial branch
| (Court) from the Executive branch (State). And most (all?) of
| the individual states follow near the same separation of
| powers.
| redeux wrote:
| Do you have a citation for this? The US has three separate,
| coequal branches. That is indisputable. But, I've always
| considered them all a part of the "state."
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| The GP's quote is a lawyer's comment on the situation, so it
| makes sense in context, but not as a substitute for the HN
| article title.
| dang wrote:
| I've changed the title in keeping with HN's rule: " _Please use
| the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don 't
| editorialize._" -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| If you want to say what you think is important about an
| article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the
| thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with
| everyone else's:
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
|
| (Submitted title was "State agrees the only witness cannot be
| believed, court to force execution")
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-01 23:02 UTC)