Jump to content

Texas And The Death Penalty


El Diablo
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I wrote inflammable in a patent application when I meant non-flammable or not flammable.  That was a fuck me moment.  Thankfully it was clear from the context.

 

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It is weird that flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. 

It goes back to safety labelling and people confused by it.

"Inflammable" was easily confused with "not flammable," so the powers that be created the word "flammable."

It is ironic that non-flammable has not been changed.

"Not flammable" does not equal "non-flammable" Twice:

35ZJ67_AL01?$smmain$

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

It’s not blood lust

The fact that you repeat this lie over and over does nothing to mitigate the claim. This is a label that a DP advocate will never be able to shake: their position is entirely predicated on a  lust for blood. I've seen it done so many times by so many of them, and they have been absolutely wrong about absolutely everything they've said regarding the topic from start to finish. 

3 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

 It would not be policy based on emotion.

It's based entirely on emotion. Thus far, you've given no objectively verifiable criteria to serve as a guide to separate the "clear cut" cases from the not-so-obvious. All you've given are vague, empty platitudes. 

3 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

my plan

What you're proposing isn't a plan; it's a wish upon a star. And that's not just rhetoric, either.

A plan involves an actual plan. A plan includes within it a tangible, feasible, and above all, realistic road map to start where we are end where you, in this case, want to be. You have not done so. Calling what you're talking about a "plan" is as responsible as calling "let's have peace, justice, and equality" a "plan." 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Cost. Riddance. Deterrence. 

Dude, how many times must it be stated that those are proven untrue.

Cost - sure your dreamland is cheaper. It also isn’t possible so why are we discussing it. It costs more to put someone to death than life in prison.

Riddance - Life in prison accomplishes this.

Deterrance - Is not effected by type or severity of the penalty as has been proven many times. 
 

So please, just give me one reason other than vengeance. If vengeance is the answer then cool that’s fine, you’re entitled to your opinion but stop pretending it’s anything other than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

I also think y’all think I’d intend to eliminate all convicted murderers. I wouldn’t. Morton was sentenced to life in prison in a DP state. Why?  

Well, for one thing, not all murders are capital murders.  Not all murders that are capital murders are charged as capital murders, or the prosecution charges capital murder, but doesn't seek the death penalty.  Morton did not commit a capital murder.

But the more important thing, even if you could feasibly create a class of capital murders where the guilt was sufficiently beyond cavil to warrant expedited execution, you are leaving out one critical piece:  the penalty phase.

Even when charged with capital murder and the death penalty is sought, a judge/jury is constitutionally required to sentence to death after a separate hearing considering factors in aggravation and mitigation of the offense, and  whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society, or not.  This penalty phase is, itself, the subject of quite a bit of post-conviction litigation.

The whole thing is just fraught with difficulty, even without considering moral difficulty.  The game is not worth the candle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

I’m not repeating what I’ve stated probably four or five times. Reread my second to last post. You’re just wrong with respect to the changes - in those swift execution instances - that would occur on cost, and its blatantly obvious. Deterrence is up for debate because this hasn’t been tried since forever. So saying it’s proven is also wrong. I did not readdress riddance a fourth or fifth time: Life in prison with possibility of parole and media attention is not getting rid of someone. 

This isn’t about vengeance or bloodlust no matter how many times HP writes an emotional novel about it. 

Again, your entire premise for the cost and deterrence points is based on fairy tales about what you think would happen if your fairytale scenario was the law so there is no point in debating them because the rest of us are debating reality.

So let’s talk about riddance, so if we took away the possibility for parole your riddance problem is solved while still leaving the possibility of not killing an innocent person. So if “riddance” is the goal it can easily be accomplished without the death penalty.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dr. Beeper said:

In such capital murder offenses and particularly the egregious ones that I’ve listed (yes, I provided examples HP), I’d say expediting the penalty phase is a game worth the candle. 

I am a fan of the jury trial as a general proposition, to include jury trials of really complicated shit, like patent infringement.

I am not entirely comfortable with the jury and the subject matter of the penalty phase.

Nonetheless, you're missing the point.  Even if guilt is sufficiently certain, that doesn't end the inquiry.  A jury has to evaluate whether the defendant "deserves" the death penalty, which is an inquiry of an entirely different kind.  And gives rise to a whole passle of appealable and debatable issues in and of itself, no matter how guilty the defendant.  Like whether you can execute a mentally retarded person.  Or someone who committed the crime as a juvenile.  Both of which are penalty phase questions answered in the negative by the Supreme Court in the last 20 years.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Disagree with everything you just said. I’ll just say I’m not trying to solve a problem. I’m telling you how I’d draw stuff up. If you wanna denigrate it by calling it a fantasy, it is, so it doesn’t bother me to hear that. I don’t work in criminal justice and would never seek to do so. I agree as a non-insider it’s broken, and it’s laughable that people have spent over 40 years on Death Row. So, I have no delusions about this being a real plan one could implement. I know we can’t. There are too many idiots heavily invested in maintaining the broken system while acknowledging that it is indeed broken. And there are too many anti DP advocates who will use a great deal of mental gymnastics why something like this is a pipe dream. I fully acknowledge this would never work in today’s American society, and therefore am merely talking shit. I also really don’t care - but when Charles Manson gets interviewed or CNN profiles Jared Loughner - I roll my eyes in disgust and turn the TV off. And then threads like this pop up and I chime in. Probably a wasted effort here. 

“Idiots heavily invested in maintaining a broken system” is not why you’re idea is a fairytale. Due process is but that’s besides the point.

If parole is taken off of the table for capital murders, why is the death penalty necessary for “riddance”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

No I understand your point. I’m saying expedite the penalty phase knowing full well the inquiry is far from over. And I wouldn’t advocate executing a juvenile or mentally retarded person. 

Not to belabor this, but the penalty phase.itself, happens pretty quickly in most capital cases.  

The point is that it can raise issues worthy of appeal or other post-conviction proceedings that can't be predicted in advance.  So if by "expediting" you mean curtailing the ability to make appeals or post-conviction litigation, you still run a high risk of executing someone who otherwise might be spared the death penalty.

An example.  You seem to agree that executing mentally ill persons is no bueno.  It took repeated appeals of similar cases and about 16 years of litigation in the one specific case Atkins v. Virginia, to get to that point.

Just in November, the Supreme Court had to tell our fair state's Court of Criminal Appeals, for the second time in the case, which has been ongoing for 39 years now, that they couldn't execute Bobby Moore because he's retarded.

The question of guilt was off the table.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Your. Due process requires average lengths of time on death row to be 15.5 years?

How often is it off the table?  Even so, media exposure influencing impressionable minds.  

It’s been explained several times in this thread the reason for lengthy appeals.

Im asking in your fantasy world why not just make murder non parole and don’t allow them to give any media appearances?  That seems like a simpler solution than the death penalty which still leaves the chance that you get it wrong and kill an innocent person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

This isn’t about vengeance or bloodlust no matter how many times HP writes an emotional novel about it. 

1). You're projecting. Everything that you have posted has been 100% rooted in emotion and emotionalism. If you took out the emotionalism of your posts, you'd wind up with a white screen.

2). What I've said about it hasn't a drop of influence over what TwiceHorn, hobbes, or anyone else has said to you about this feeble nonsense that you've spewed onto this discussion. They knew it was verbal effluvia before I had word one to say about it.

3). Yes, it absolutely is about bloodlust and I haven't given a single "emotional novel" on that topic. What I've given is reason and fact-based: you have not defended your claims a single iota about this not being based on a lust for blood. You have danced around this topic since you started, and all you've done in "defense" of your claim is simply to restate it without giving specifics as to how to overcome the very obvious problems of implementing such an abhorrent policy. You've literally been absolutely wrong about absolutely everything you've said regarding this topic, and my emotional temperature has had jack shit to do with it. You knew better than to puke out such garbled drivel. You aren't advancing a serious policy proposal, you aren't advocating a pathway of how to arrive at same, you aren't engaging in a serious dialogue, you are not defending what you say with research and analysis supported by peer review; you are just hooting.

If you were as certain as you pretend to be that what you "propose" would pan out the way you say it will, and that it would serve as a societal good, you would illustrate the why's and how's, and you'd do so with evidence. You don't do any of that. And if you're going to come back at that comment with "I said it was a fantasy," then leave it there because such an admission is also a confession to its pointlessness and uselessness.

Edited by hpslugga
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

So, Abel Ochoa of Dallas is set to be executed tomorrow.  His guilt is certain and his crime horrific.  But he's been appealing in relation to the punishment stage for the last 15 years. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/man-convicted-of-killing-5-family-members-in-oak-cliff-set-for-execution/2305335/

This one hits me harder than most because I was called to serve on his jury.  All I did was fill out a 20 page questionnaire, but I got to look at the man.  And I was also freshly sober, or relatively so and had a serious there but for the grace of God go I moment.

Filing out that questionnaire was when my opposition to the death penalty solidified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2020 at 5:26 AM, WhatTheBuck said:

Better for everyone deserving of the death penalty to serve life in prison than for the state to wrongly execute one innocent person. 

I agree. 

Meanwhile, here's an argument that I've heard in favor of the death penalty.  "Sure, we've executed innocent people.  And penicillin kills people every day, but saves many, many more.  Surely, we shouldn't do away with penicillin".   

Dennis Prager said that, IIRC.  
 

I think it's bullshit, but at least it's an argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I agree. 

Meanwhile, here's an argument that I've heard in favor of the death penalty.  "Sure, we've executed innocent people.  And penicillin kills people every day, but saves many, many more.  Surely, we shouldn't do away with penicillin".   

Dennis Prager said that, IIRC.  
 

I think it's bullshit, but at least it's an argument. 

Horrible analogy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2020 at 9:53 AM, Dr. Beeper said:

It hasn’t been explained why appeals process has extended DR stays by 2.5x in last 35 years, and why that is at all logical in certain known cases. 

On your second paragraph I need to give that more thought. That’s logical. But doesn’t do anything with respect to cost savings. 

That is so cute that you think the administration in charge of running prisons wants to lower costs.   Prisons are like hotels.  They don't make money with vacant cells.  You ever wonder why our West Texas immigrant tents with water bottles and chef boyarde cans are more expensive than the Plaza Athenee in NYC.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Nivek said:

That is so cute that you think the administration in charge of running prisons wants to lower costs.   Prisons are like hotels.  They don't make money with vacant cells.  You ever wonder why our West Texas immigrant tents with water bottles and chef boyarde cans are more expensive than the Plaza Athenee in NYC.  

This is true of private prisons, but they aren't all private.  Not even close to a majority.

They are a giant suck on taxpayer resources.

There is the institutional self-preservation thing at work though, which is why BOP never wants to release anyone, even when Congress and the courts tell them to.  This is really bizarre to me, but on countless occasions, the BOP seems to want to exercise its independent judgment about when to release people when they aren't the elected officials (to pay any price for it), and it isn't their job description.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2020 at 9:53 AM, Dr. Beeper said:

It hasn’t been explained why appeals process has extended DR stays by 2.5x in last 35 years, and why that is at all logical in certain known cases. 

On your second paragraph I need to give that more thought. That’s logical. But doesn’t do anything with respect to cost savings. 

I will explain why death row appeals take longer than they used to.  Because the Supreme Court keeps making it harder to impose the death penalty.  A required, separate penalty phase tried by a jury is a new thing.  No death penalty for mentally retarded is new.  No DP for juvenile offenders is new. 

The Supreme Court has said not only do we need to be really certain of guilt and fairness in the proceeding, but we also have to be doubly sure that the defendant deserves the death penalty and has the opportunity to plead for mercy.

All of this creates new grounds for post-conviction litigation.  All of these things were necessary to make the death penalty constitutional again after Furman v. Georgia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is true of private prisons, but they aren't all private.  Not even close to a majority.

They are a giant suck on taxpayer resources.

There is the institutional self-preservation thing at work though, which is why BOP never wants to release anyone, even when Congress and the courts tell them to.

They are a jobs program, fewer prisons = fewer workers = fewer admin.   They are getting paid one way or another.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think it’d be twisted to execute known evil people inside a year?  And don’t respond with parsing the word known. 


How would you implement your “plan”?

Specifically, are you just saying that we should amend all state and federal laws to state that in cases of convictions with death penalty sentences that there should be zero appeals allowed? That’s the only way o can think of to execute someone within a year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Another reason I think the majority of"Christians" are fucked up to the point of mental illness.  Could Jesus be any more clear on his stance of turning the other cheek?  Yet, Christians, almost to a man, LOVE the death penalty.  

Hypocritical cunts, with an Orange Cunt as their true savior.  

You don’t know what you are talking about. Jesus was a huge fan of the death penalty. Even bill hicks knew this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Another reason I think the majority of"Christians" are fucked up to the point of mental illness.  Could Jesus be any more clear on his stance of turning the other cheek?  Yet, Christians, almost to a man, LOVE the death penalty.  

Oh, and...

FT_18.06.08_DeathPenalty_gender-racial-d

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Ochoa is now deceased. Killed 5 in 2002.

 

HOUSTON (AP) A Texas man was executed Thursday evening for the shooting deaths of his wife, two children and two other relatives during a drug-fueled rage nearly 18 years ago.

Abel Ochoa, 47, received a lethal injection just after 6 p.m. Thursday in Huntsville.

Prosecutors say Ochoa was high on crack cocaine when he started shooting inside his Dallas home in August 2002.

He was sentenced to death for the slayings of his wife and his 7-year-old daughter.

Also killed were his 9-month-old daughter, his father-in-law and a sister-in-law.

Ochoa was the second inmate put to death this year in Texas and the third in the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morally I don't have a problem putting a person to death whom committed a horrific crime. My problem is that I simply do not trust the police to be unbiased. For me politically I am against the death penalty for two reasons.  First is it is so fucking expensive to kill somebody, so fiscally it's not cost effective, which drives a lot of my decision making on policy.  Secondly killing one innocent person is a cost that is too great, for revenge.

Shit look at the cluster fuck that is the Rodney Reed case, to sew doubt.  Black guy is screwing white police officer in small town's finance.  Fiance turn's up dead, and not a glance at the police officer fiance and the die is cast. Reed may have indeed murdered Stacey Stites, but why test only part of the evidence?  Reed lies about fuckng a white police officers fiance in the Bastrop Texas jail. He was likely scared shitless. I was once assaulted by an off duty DPS office on 6th street and he was hauled away and never booked. So my perception of police honesty and morals is probably exactly where it should be. I had others not stepped in and made it clear I did not throw a single punch I would have likely been a crack dealer by the time is was over.  Still wish I had one punched that dumb ass, who couldn't fight but I knew I would be jailed in he would be free. So a face full of mace, and a near wrongful arrest was my sentence for being assaulted by a public servant.  

Could you honest feel good about putting Rodney Reed to death? Could you do it with a sense of moral certainty?

10 Facts you should know about Rodney Reed case - Innocence Project

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
15 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

I guess we're showing some compassion now, execution put on hold due to coronavirus concerns.

https://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Third-Texas-execution-delayed-because-of-coronavirus-outbreak-569288321.html

"Guys, call it off.  You can't have gatherings of 10 or more."

"No, no.  Give me a sec.  It's about to be 9."

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Does that disappoint you?

No, can't say that it disappoints me at all.  Sometimes folks will hurry up an execution and burial due to upcoming religious holy day observation. Guess it can go both ways but regardless seems to favor the needs of those who were not condemned to death by the state.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 years later...

Not Texas, but infuriating to me that a few Republicans finally give a shit about the broken process--when it affects a white guy. People have been harping on these problems for decades including how these prosecutorial misconduct issues and "botched" processes disproportionately affect minority defendants. None of them care and lost their shit when the Governor commuted Julius Jones' execution, after many claimed very similar problems with his trial, but only did so by heavily implying that it was to avoid riots from "those people." If it helps get rid of this barbaric practice, fine, but it really grinds me that it has to be a white person for a republican to give any sort of shit.

 

Could This Case Help Upend The Death Penalty In Oklahoma?

By Jack Karp | January 20, 2023, 12:37 PM EST

Oklahoma state Rep. Kevin W. McDugle used to be an unequivocal proponent of the death penalty.

"Three years ago, I honestly did not think it was even possible to have somebody innocent on death row," McDugle, a Republican, told Law360.

Then he looked into the case of Richard Glossip.

Glossip is currently scheduled to be executed on Feb. 16, even as attorneys and supporters call attention to a lack of physical evidence tying him to the murder he was convicted of, the constantly shifting testimony of the actual killer, and accusations of prosecutorial misconduct, among other concerns.

"And that has got me to think more about the death penalty and whether or not we should even have it," McDugle said.

McDugle isn't alone. State lawmakers, an independent commission and the public all seem to be rethinking Oklahoma's use of capital punishment, in part because of Glossip's and similar cases.

While some experts say their questions could lead to changes in how, or even if, the state imposes the death penalty, others insist that such change is unlikely. But lawmakers like McDugle are starting to consider it.

"Cases like the Glossip case, where there's real doubt about 'Do we have the right person,' those kinds of cases help change minds," said Austin D. Sarat, professor of law, jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College. "That leads people to think, maybe this isn't worth it."

'Red Flags of Innocence'

No one disputes that Justin Sneed — not Richard Glossip  — murdered Barry Van Treese in an Oklahoma City motel in 1997.

But when Sneed was arrested, he told police that Glossip, the motel's manager, had offered him money to kill Van Treese, an accusation Glossip denies.

Glossip was twice convicted of murder and sentenced to death — his first conviction was overturned — after Sneed testified against him in exchange for avoiding the death penalty.

Glossip has been on death row since 1998, where he's seen his execution date scheduled eight separate times. Seven times it's been stayed, most recently to allow the state's Court of Criminal Appeals to consider his latest petition for post-conviction relief.

The court rejected that petition in November, ruling that the issues with his case that Glossip pointed out either had been raised or could have been raised in earlier appeals. Evidence Glossip claims the state withheld also didn't rise to the level of exculpatory material prosecutors must disclose, the court said.

That decision "was clearly wrong," according to Glossip's attorney, Donald R. Knight, who says doubts about the investigation and prosecution of Glossip warrant an evidentiary hearing at the trial court.

An independent investigation conducted by law firm Reed Smith LLP at the request of Oklahoma state legislators, for instance, found that detectives interviewed only six motel guests even though 19 rooms were occupied at the time of the murder.

Police also failed to both follow up on leads and to collect or process evidence from the crime scene, and lost a surveillance video from the night of the murder, according to Reed Smith's report, which called the investigation "deficient," "haphazard" and "error‐ridden."

Sneed's testimony, which is the primary evidence against Glossip, has proven problematic as well, and not just because it was given in exchange for leniency, say Glossip's supporters.

According to Reed Smith's report, Sneed never mentioned Glossip during his interrogation until after detectives repeatedly brought him up themselves and implied that Sneed should incriminate him.

Sneed then changed his testimony multiple times. Knight says he's found "many" witnesses who can testify that Sneed told them a different story than the one he told police, and there are indications that Sneed may have even tried to recant his testimony.

Accusations that prosecutors destroyed evidence, orchestrated or altered witness testimony, and distorted facts to fit their theory have also dogged the case.

"His entire case is problematic," said Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, which takes no overall position on the use of capital punishment but criticizes how it's administered. "The red flags of innocence are all over the place."

The Oklahoma Attorney General's Office declined to comment on the case, and the Oklahoma County District Attorney's Office did not respond to interview requests.

But in an August filing with the state's Pardon and Parole Board, the Attorney General's Office rebutted all criticisms of the case, insisting that Glossip is guilty and that the "frenzy" surrounding his case is the result of "manipulated" and "slanted" portrayals in the media.

"With the assistance of his defense team, he has manipulated the narrative around his crime to portray himself as the victim of what he himself instigated," the Attorney General's Office wrote.

Exemplary, but Not Unique

Concerns about Glossip's case, and the state's efforts to execute him despite those concerns, aren't surprising given where he was convicted, according to Dunham.

Over the last 50 years, as executions have slowed in much of the nation, Oklahoma County has sentenced more people to death than any other county its size. The number of people it has put to death per capita is triple that of the second-ranking similarly sized county, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

"Oklahoma County is a national outlier in the pursuit of the death penalty," Dunham said.

It also has among the highest rates of prosecutorial misconduct in capital cases and among the most exonerations of death row prisoners, he added. Malfeasance on the part of prosecutors has resulted in reversal or exoneration in at least 11 Oklahoma County death penalty cases, according to the center.

Advocates say it's the same with Glossip's case, as they allege that prosecutors instructed police to destroy evidence before Glossip's second trial. Reed Smith's report concluded that the destruction "was not merely an accident" but was "expressly intended."

Prosecutors have also been accused of reaching out to Sneed's attorney before trial to get him to change his testimony, and of withholding information that could have helped Glossip's defense.

These concerns don't make Glossip's case unique — they make it "exemplary," according to Sarat at Amherst College, who says the case illustrates many of the problems with capital punishment.

In fact, a 2017 report by the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission recommended continuing a moratorium on executions, which had been put in place as a result of several "botched" executions and the state's difficulty obtaining approved drugs for executions, after "disturbing" findings "led commission members to question whether the death penalty can be administered in a way that ensures no innocent person is put to death."

Despite the commission's recommendations, that moratorium was lifted in the fall of 2021, when the state executed its first prisoner in six years.

"The death penalty system is broken in several ways. It's notoriously unreliable in distinguishing the innocent from the guilty," Sarat said. "The Glossip case is a good example."

The Shifting Politics of the Death Penalty

That example may be leading people to rethink capital punishment in Oklahoma, some activists hope.

Nearly three dozen state lawmakers, mostly Republicans and some who have been supportive of the death penalty, have voiced concerns with Glossip's execution. One of them is McDugle, who said the case has affected his views on the death penalty "in a huge way."

Among other potential legislative changes, McDugle is now considering rewriting the law so decisions by the state's Court of Criminal Appeals can be appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which they currently cannot be.

He and other lawmakers could go even further.

"I think it is possible that Oklahoma does away with the death penalty," McDugle said.

That's because Glossip's case, along with several high-profile "botched" executions, have also affected how the public sees the death penalty, according to McDugle. A recently conducted survey found that only 35% of Oklahomans adamantly demand to keep capital punishment, he said.

"I've been on the news for the last two years talking about Richard Glossip and all the issues we're having, and I think people hearing that have now said, 'You know, is it really worth it?'" McDugle explained.

But changes in how or even whether Oklahoma implements the death penalty are very unlikely, according to Susan F. Sharp, professor of sociology at the University of Oklahoma.

She noted that while many legislators had opposed specific death sentences in the past, including Glossip's, that opposition hasn't led to legislative changes. And problems with cases like Glossip's don't seem to have swayed Oklahoma voters either, Sharp said.

Nearly two-thirds of them voted in 2016 to amend the state constitution to maintain capital punishment, according to the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office.

And Oklahoma's Court of Criminal Appeals this summer gave the go-ahead for 25 executions, scheduling nearly one a month from August 2022 through December 2024, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The first of this year's was carried out Jan. 12.

"I would be dumbstruck if Oklahoma had a change," Sharp said.

The Fate of Richard Glossip

If Oklahoma eventually does change its use of the death penalty, any change is unlikely to affect Glossip, who is scheduled to be put to death on Feb. 16.

But it's unclear if that execution will actually happen.

Glossip's attorneys have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider his case, according to Knight, who plans to pursue other avenues in the Tenth Circuit if that petition doesn't succeed.

Personnel changes could also affect the case. The state's Pardon and Parole Board is due to get several new members. And the state has a new attorney general while Oklahoma County has a new district attorney, both of whom may reexamine the case, according to McDugle.

In fact, that new attorney general filed a motion on Jan. 17 to push back Glossip's and several other executions by 60 days.

But whether Glossip's execution takes place in February, later, or not at all, it has already affected how legislators and citizens view the death penalty, both in Oklahoma and nationally, according to Dunham.

"Glossip's case has been eye-opening," Dunham said. "They have seen things that they cannot believe the justice system would permit, and their loss of confidence in the trustworthiness of the system to carry out the death penalty fairly is causing them to move away from the death penalty."

--Editing by Karin Roberts.

Have a story idea for Access to Justice? Reach us at accesstojustice@law360.com.

Read more at: https://www.law360.com/access-to-justice/articles/1567387?nl_pk=a1f10829-b9a6-4822-8bbe-0f1e0c8b2a1e&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=access-to-justice&utm_content=2023-01-21&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0?copied=1

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also infuriating that nobody cared when we tortured a man to death. If this isn't cruel and unusual, why even have that in the Constitution?

Lockett was administered an untested mixture of drugs that had not previously been used for executions in the United States.[2] Although the execution was stopped, Lockett died 43 minutes after being sedated. He writhed, groaned, convulsed,[3] and spoke during the process and attempted to rise from the execution table fourteen minutes into the procedure, despite having been declared unconscious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Clayton_Lockett

  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

"Three years ago, I honestly did not think it was even possible to have somebody innocent on death row," McDugle, a Republican, told Law360.

Really? People think that somewhere along the way the justice system hasn't made a mistake? It's infallible? 

Here are a few stats for the esteemed representative:
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/innocence-by-the-numbers

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...