The case against Richard Glossip fell apart. Even the state’s Republican attorney general says he should not be executed. The Supreme Court may not care.
The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will hear Glossip v. Oklahoma, a long-simmering death penalty case where the state’s Republican attorney general is urging the justices not to make his state kill a man after the prosecution’s case completely fell apart.
Last May, the Court temporarily blocked Richard Glossip’s execution, after Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond informed the Court that “the State of Oklahoma recently made the difficult decision to confess error and support vacating the conviction of Richard Glossip.”
Among other things, a committee of state lawmakers commissioned a law firm to investigate whether Glossip, who was convicted for allegedly hiring a coworker to kill his boss in 1997, received a fair trial. The firm released a 343-page report laying out many errors in the process that ended in Glossip being sentenced to die:
…
The argument is for doing it right the first time, and not setting a precedent that cases can just be challenged and challenged indefinitely and forever. Once appeals are exhausted, that’s supposed to be the end of the case. Witnesses lie or don’t come forward, science evolves, police standards change, but everything falls apart without some finality. This is the concept of legal guilt or legal innocence. That someone is factually innocent or guilty is another matter. I think factual innocence should always be a get out of jail free card. In my state relevant post-conviction laws are based on a standard of “grounds consistent with innocence.”
Another argument is that the inherent injustice of such finality is fully mitigated by the governor’s pardon, and the governor is answerable to the voters. Checks and balances.
I don’t agree with either of those.
An appeal to a higher court has to be accepted. You can/should be able to appeal because of procedural issues or new evidence. If you have neither, your appeal won’t be granted. This by itself stops endless appeals.
A justice system that says “sure, you can prove he’s innocent NOW, but AT THE TIME we made the right call so he should continue his punishment” isn’t a justice system at all.
The fact that a politician can override the justice system isn’t a solution, it’s at best problematic on its own. If the politician’s pardon is based on some just ideal (law is too harsh, punishment is too harsh, former criminal is reformed) then why don’t they make it law? If it’s not just then the pardon is unjust by definition.
I agree with you completely. I was just reciting the counter arguments as I understand them.
Yeah, tell that to the innocent person in death row. “The governor didn’t pardon me, and so I will be killed. Boy is he in for a troubled election campaign!”
Right, I suppose it isn’t fully mitigated if the person still dies.