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:
…
Well luckily the only thing required to not do that is… Not do that.
“oh please don’t make me kill this man like the law said I have to!”
If only there were something preventing all these people from dragging him into the execution room, strapping him in, and flipping the proverbial switch… Sadly, people have no capability of independent thought or actions and as we all know, “I was just following orders” is a famously solid defense.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
To wit, I support the governor pushing back with every means they have
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.
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.
They sure could.
They might lose their jobs over it, but they can absolutely refuse an order. They are not robots.