this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
434 points (98.9% liked)

News

23014 readers
9 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Glynn Simmons, 71, who was released in July after prosecutors agreed that key evidence in his case was not turned over to his defense lawyers, was ruled innocent Tuesday.

“This court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the offense for which Mr. Simmons was convicted, sentenced and imprisoned... was not committed by Mr. Simmons,” according to the ruling by Oklahoma County District Judge Amy Palumbo.

The ruling makes Simmons eligible for up to $175,000 in compensation from the state for wrongful conviction and opens the door for a federal lawsuit against Oklahoma City and law enforcement involved in Simmons’ arrest and conviction, defense attorney Joe Norwood said Wednesday.

Compensation, though, is likely years away, Norwood said and Simmons is currently living on donations while undergoing treatment for cancer that was detected after his release from prison.

“Glynn is having to live off of GoFundMe, that’s literally how the man is surviving right now, paying rent, buying food,” Norwood said. “Getting him compensation, and getting compensation is not for sure, is in the future and he has to sustain himself now.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because death penalty supporters are okay with killing innocents if they get to feel retribution and kill someone, regardless of "justice".

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And prosecutors who intentionally withhold evidence in cases like this and death penalty cases are also "taking someone's life", so to speak. They're no better than cold-blooded killers.

(Speaking of which, if only the State of Florida would stop f**king around with Tommy Zeigler.)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Lawyer here: Lock'em up. Maybe this is a radical position, but these kinds of cases demonstrate the need to do away with absolute immunity for prosecutors and judges. Qualified immunity would be more appropriate, and unlike with police, there's never a question whether judges and prosecutors know their obligations. If you withhold evidence in order to take another man's freedom and it can be proved against you, you should go to the penitentiary, full stop. And if you sell kids to prisons in exchange for kickbacks, you should be hanged.

This is part of the problem with having a self-regulated profession. As much as I appreciate that the ethical rules to which I'm beholden are created by people who are similarly educated and have experience with the practice of the profession, we're well past the point that good lawyers and judges need to be holding bad ones genuinely accountable. 50 years of a man's life isn't worth a law license or a term on the bench. It's not even fucking close. If you want prosecutors to stop fucking around with evidence and you want judges to stop taking bribes, their legal responsibilities need to have the same teeth as the ones they wield against others. You perpetrate a fraud on the court and it costs an innocent man 50 years--you go to jail for 50 years. Lex talionis.

And if that kind of standard means people don't want to be prosecutors? Well, people who want to be able to withhold evidence shouldn't be prosecutors!

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No it's because it should only be used in the most cut and dry cases.

Cases like Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Hitler, Putin, Stalin.

Killing someone because they killed one person or did some heinous thing once is not a good solution.

Killing someone who has shown they do not care about human life to the point of killing multiple people either directly or indirectly is completely morally sound.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All convictions are theoretically cut and dry. The legal system has proven again and again to be far too blunt an instrument to make the kind of distinction you're asking for. The death penalty offers no benefit beyond the satisfaction of revenge, and it inevitably leads to innocent people dying. It's an unconscionable tradeoff.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The death penalty offers no benefit beyond the satisfaction of revenge

I'm not saying I'm in favour of the death penalty, but to play devil's advocate it must surely be cheaper for the state to execute a man than to jail him for 50 years?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Nope. Death penalty cases usually involve so many appeals they cost more.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/76th2011/ExhibitDocument/OpenExhibitDocument?exhibitId=17686&fileDownloadName=h041211ab501_pescetta.pdf

That source and basically every other study disagrees. It's much more expensive to execute someone than keep them incarcerated.