190
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

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:

...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee -5 points 9 months ago

Huh? They are officers of the state. They can't just "choose" to not complete very public tasks.

I hope they get this guy vacated and free, but I want people to follow the law, not choose whatever they want. What if they really wanted to kill him?

I hope the law is changed to where the death penalty is removed entirely, but that's not now.

[-] GCanuck@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago

Not to go all “but the Nazis”…. But there was a time we hanged people for just following orders.

They absolutely can, and should, choose not to follow immoral orders. It’s the basic duty we expect of every public official.

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago

Absolutely. I'm suggesting lawful, voted orders that people signed up for, should be followed.

For example, that lady who refused to fill out marriage licenses for gay people after she had been working for years. Like, no, you don't just get to pick and choose.

[-] MimicJar@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Actually you do, you just have to accept the potential consequences.

The correct thing for Kim Davis (the woman you mentioned) to do would have been to resign. She can refuse to perform an action she objects to, but it will and did cost her her job.

Look at Nixon and the Saturday Night Massacre. Nixon legally ordered his AG to fire the special prosecutor, he declined and resigned. Nixon ordered the next in line, he declined and resigned.

Those actions by Nixon had MAJOR political consequences and ultimately lead to his own resignation to avoid impeachment.

In this case, if the entirety of the organization resigned, it would send a clear message.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

The problem is that justice is subjective and people have the ability to make a subjective decision. They are making a CHOICE to proceed with the execution in spite of the evidence. If there is a hell, these are the sorts that will go there.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

They sure could.

They might lose their jobs over it, but they can absolutely refuse an order. They are not robots.

this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
190 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19096 readers
1762 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS