Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Charles Rhines case: Jurors with questionable motives in capital cases

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Charles Rhines case: Jurors with questionable motives in capital cases

    There's a good chance this will become a national controversy a month or so from now.

    About a month from now (this state doesn't set exact dates this far in advance), Charles Rhines is scheduled to be executed in South Dakota. It's undisputed that he committed a very brutal murder. What's controversial is what happened in the juror room during the sentencing phase.

    Rhines is gay, and the jurors knew it. They sent a note to the judge asking specific questions about what life would be like in prison for him, such as if he would have a cellmate or mix with general population, and some noted that "he shouldn't be able to spend his life with men in prison". So, he was sentenced to death.

    The Supreme Court ruled that judges have a right to confront jurors in a case where racial bias was obvious, but that doesn't apply here. As recently as a couple decades ago, in some states, prosecutors would sometimes bring in expert witnesses who would testify that black inmates are more likely to reoffend and thus should be executed. (That doesn't fly anymore, legally, though last I heard, some prisoners who were thus sentenced still remain on death row.) So my question is this: Assuming that the death penalty is not immoral (I'm not looking for that debate here) and that there is no question of innocence, should a death sentence be set aside if jurors had a really bad reason for selecting death?

    Rhines unquestionably committed a horrible crime, the details I won't describe here, and is not a poster boy for sympathy. He deserves to be punished. The question is how.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...te-who-n884196
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

  • #2
    If we're going to sit in judgment of jurors' reasoning, amend the Constitution to get rid of jury trials. Leave everything up to the judges. They are smarter and better than regular people anyway. If you don't believe me, just ask a few.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Federalist.

    Nationalist Christian.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

    Proud member of the this space left blank community.

    Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

    Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

    Justice for Matthew Perna!

    Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

    Comment


    • #3
      Kinda related...

      Several years ago, I saw an article in a police newsletter I receive, that talked about Jury Nullification, and an anticipated new wave of "social justice warriors" managing to ensconce themselves on juries in cases where they could disrupt the system* by their presence on a jury. So far, it appears the law of averages works against them, due to the first step of the jury selection process which, supposedly, is quite random. A dishonest or activist (or both) juror could certainly play havoc in the rendering of a jury's decision.


      *it would be quite easy in many cases to force a "hung jury", or to sway other jurors away from a conviction regardless of the evidence
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #4
        All of this makes a good case for a system of professional jurors who are well versed in legal matters,
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          All of this makes a good case for a system of professional jurors who are well versed in legal matters,
          Pretty much, yeah, cause I don't know how many times I've heard a laywer say something like, "well, now it's in the hands of twelve people too stupid to get themselves excused from jury duty".
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #6
            I took a class on forensic psychology in college. It is truly amazing how little I knew about law court procedures and psychology.
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Kinda related...

              Several years ago, I saw an article in a police newsletter I receive, that talked about Jury Nullification, and an anticipated new wave of "social justice warriors" managing to ensconce themselves on juries in cases where they could disrupt the system* by their presence on a jury. So far, it appears the law of averages works against them, due to the first step of the jury selection process which, supposedly, is quite random. A dishonest or activist (or both) juror could certainly play havoc in the rendering of a jury's decision.


              *it would be quite easy in many cases to force a "hung jury", or to sway other jurors away from a conviction regardless of the evidence
              Hopefully the prosecutor would be able to also pick those types out in voir dire. Many times these types of activists are too angry and stupid to hide their true motivations when questioned. Also, if a jury is blatantly not following jury instructions to the point of letting off a murderer, can't the judge reject the verdict and make them go again, or replace a juror who is not acting in good faith?

              But in the OP, I think it is well within a Jury's right to consider the type of sentence a person would have if convicted. If they feel a horrible murderer would actually thrive in prison, they are within their rights to give him the death penalty as punishment if it is on the table. Or even vice versa, if they know the guy would prefer to die, they can decide to punish him more by giving him life. If a Judge disagrees, they can change it. Most courts I know, just have the jury determine guilt or innocence and the sentencing it up to the judge.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Hopefully the prosecutor would be able to also pick those types out in voir dire. Many times these types of activists are too angry and stupid to hide their true motivations when questioned.
                Supposedly, this was going to be a united front, where they were trained in "staying on the jury" through voir dire - but I haven't heard of any of this actually happening. The chances of probably that they'd even picked in the first place pretty slim, as well.

                Also, if a jury is blatantly not following jury instructions to the point of letting off a murderer, can't the judge reject the verdict and make them go again, or replace a juror who is not acting in good faith?
                That pretty much depends on the venue, but I would think so, yes.

                But in the OP, I think it is well within a Jury's right to consider the type of sentence a person would have if convicted. If they feel a horrible murderer would actually thrive in prison, they are within their rights to give him the death penalty as punishment if it is on the table. Or even vice versa, if they know the guy would prefer to die, they can decide to punish him more by giving him life. If a Judge disagrees, they can change it. Most courts I know, just have the jury determine guilt or innocence and the sentencing it up to the judge.
                I don't know about anywhere else, but in Texas the jury gets to find for guilt or innocence, THEN there is the part of the trial for sentencing. Some of the testimony is not allowed during the trial (such as prior offenses, etc) but IS allowed for the sentencing part. And the defendant can choose to allow the jury to set sentencing, or the judge.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  All of this makes a good case for a system of professional jurors who are well versed in legal matters,
                  lol. the courts don' like people who are trained in legal matters. lawyers, as I understand it, are typically not accepted on to juries.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                    If we're going to sit in judgment of jurors' reasoning, amend the Constitution to get rid of jury trials. Leave everything up to the judges. They are smarter and better than regular people anyway. If you don't believe me, just ask a few.
                    The first problem with this idea is that the use of jurors was designed so that peers would be able to decide the case rather than the system that makes the laws and accuses people. If we get rid of jurors from the public, we might as well just make a unified group that makes the laws, accuses people and decides they are guilty.

                    Anyone in court on a crime still has the option to go with the trained judge or with the jury trial. Sometimes the trial decided by a judge yields benefits (and appeals) not available through a jury trial.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                      The first problem with this idea is that the use of jurors was designed so that peers would be able to decide the case rather than the system that makes the laws and accuses people. If we get rid of jurors from the public, we might as well just make a unified group that makes the laws, accuses people and decides they are guilty.

                      Anyone in court on a crime still has the option to go with the trained judge or with the jury trial. Sometimes the trial decided by a judge yields benefits (and appeals) not available through a jury trial.
                      Well, it's a shame that an attorney can pretty well can guess an outcome of a trial based on the reputation of the judge assigned to the case. That has a lot of bearing on whether he requests a trial by jury or not.

                      When I was arrested for homeschooling back in the early 80's, I was charged with THREE offenses, even thought the Texas School Law Bulletin was clear that a second offense was not chargeable until a first offense rendered a guilty verdict. So, I exercised my right to demand a separate trial for each offense, trial by jury for each trial, and a separate jury for each trial.

                      (they never let it go to court)
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        Well, it's a shame that an attorney can pretty well can guess an outcome of a trial based on the reputation of the judge assigned to the case. That has a lot of bearing on whether he requests a trial by jury or not.

                        When I was arrested for homeschooling back in the early 80's, I was charged with THREE offenses, even thought the Texas School Law Bulletin was clear that a second offense was not chargeable until a first offense rendered a guilty verdict. So, I exercised my right to demand a separate trial for each offense, trial by jury for each trial, and a separate jury for each trial.

                        (they never let it go to court)
                        Is education still outlawed in Texas?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                          Is education still outlawed in Texas?
                          While you're probably making a joke, the fact is that "compulsory attendance" (for which I got charged violating) does not exist in the TSLB. It's "compulsory education" - but the educators don't want you to know that.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Pretty much, yeah, cause I don't know how many times I've heard a laywer say something like, "well, now it's in the hands of twelve people too stupid to get themselves excused from jury duty".
                            Or honest enough not to...


                            I spent a week on two trials as a alternate. The first came back with the verdict I expected. The second - literally, I couldn't figure out what trial they had been at.

                            I was the geek taking notes.
                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Quill Sword

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                            6 responses
                            48 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post whag
                            by whag
                             
                            Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                            42 responses
                            232 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post whag
                            by whag
                             
                            Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                            24 responses
                            104 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Ronson
                            by Ronson
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                            32 responses
                            176 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                            73 responses
                            310 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                            Working...
                            X