Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBREAKING: The Supreme Court declined to take up the case of a death row inmate, Charles Rhines.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court declined to take up the case of a death row inmate, Charles Rhines. He sought to challenge his sentence based on evidence of anti-gay bias in juror statements. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041519zor_h3dj.pdf
Link to tweet
Late yesterday, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review Charles Rhines case because there is compelling evidence that at least some of the jurors sentenced him to death in part because he is gay. The brief argues that sexual orientation discrimination must be removed from the administration of justice, and that jury sentences infected by anti-gay bias like the death sentence handed down in Mr. Rhines case must not stand.
No person should be put to death because of who they are, said Daniel Harawa, Assistant Counsel at LDF. Jury verdicts infected by anti-gay bias, like those tainted by racial bias, undermine the Constitutions promise of equal protection and an impartial jury. This is especially true in the capital context given the Eighth Amendments protection against the arbitrary or discriminatory imposition of the death penalty.
LDF was lead counsel in Buck v. Davis, where the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated Duane Bucks death sentence because of the influence of racial bias. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court reaffirmed the longstanding principle that [o]ur law punishes people for what they do, not who they are.
LDFs brief argues that this principle articulated by the Court in Buck should apply here. In Mr. Rhines case, one of the jurors signed an affidavit in which he invoked a disturbing anti-gay stereotype, stating that, that if [Mr. Rhines] is gay, wed be sending him where he wants to go if we voted for [life imprisonment]. Another juror added that during deliberations there was, lots of discussion of homosexuality and there was a lot of disgust. These remarks show that contrary to the principle underscored in Buck, some jurors sentenced Mr. Rhines to death not because of what he did, but because of who he is.
https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/ldf-files-u-s-supreme-court-amicus-brief-urging-review-capital-case-involving-evidence-egregious-anti-gay-bias/
No person should be put to death because of who they are, said Daniel Harawa, Assistant Counsel at LDF. Jury verdicts infected by anti-gay bias, like those tainted by racial bias, undermine the Constitutions promise of equal protection and an impartial jury. This is especially true in the capital context given the Eighth Amendments protection against the arbitrary or discriminatory imposition of the death penalty.
LDF was lead counsel in Buck v. Davis, where the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated Duane Bucks death sentence because of the influence of racial bias. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court reaffirmed the longstanding principle that [o]ur law punishes people for what they do, not who they are.
LDFs brief argues that this principle articulated by the Court in Buck should apply here. In Mr. Rhines case, one of the jurors signed an affidavit in which he invoked a disturbing anti-gay stereotype, stating that, that if [Mr. Rhines] is gay, wed be sending him where he wants to go if we voted for [life imprisonment]. Another juror added that during deliberations there was, lots of discussion of homosexuality and there was a lot of disgust. These remarks show that contrary to the principle underscored in Buck, some jurors sentenced Mr. Rhines to death not because of what he did, but because of who he is.
https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/ldf-files-u-s-supreme-court-amicus-brief-urging-review-capital-case-involving-evidence-egregious-anti-gay-bias/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 902 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BREAKING: The Supreme Court declined to take up the case of a death row inmate, Charles Rhines. (Original Post)
demmiblue
Apr 2019
OP
CincyDem
(6,363 posts)1. Interesting that they couldn't get 4 for cert on this one.
Would have expected the liberal wing to at least be willing to hear the case.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)2. I had to google to find out what this guys crime was
Since it's was accidently left off this posting and article.
I think the death penalty is the correct sentence for the horrible murder he committed.
It's ashame that the jury made nasty comments about this sexuality, but I think they got the penalty right.