Oklahoma judge rules a man who wrongfully spent nearly 50 years in prison for murder is innocent
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.”
I don’t understand why cases like this aren’t the only rationale needed to abolish the death penalty.
Also, that poor man - I hope he is able to live as happy a life as can be expected given the injustice that he endured.
Because death penalty supporters are okay with killing innocents if they get to feel retribution and kill someone, regardless of "justice".
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.
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.
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?
Nope. Death penalty cases usually involve so many appeals they cost more.
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.
With just $175k? Not likely.
Or just paying attention to the awful current state of policing in the US.