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
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
Comment