Court Rules Against Shackling Defendants

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that it is unconstitutional to force capital murder defendants to appear before juries in chains and shackles.

Justices, on a 7-2 vote, threw out the conviction of Carman Deck, who was shackled in leg irons and handcuffed to a chain around his belly when he faced a Missouri jury that put him on death row.
...
The decision left room for court personnel to handcuff defendants, but only if they pose a special security risk.

In a dissent, Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia said the ruling "all but ignores the serious security issues facing our courts."

"The need for security is real. Judges face the possibility that a defendant or his confederates might smuggle a weapon into court and harm those present, or attack with his bare hands," Thomas wrote for the two.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/23/AR2005052300503.html

we can have hoods and orange jumpsuits with dogs in attendence to PROVE how dangerous these 'yet to be convicted' prisoners REALLY ARE!

Edit to add :sarcasm: (just in case!)

Pre-conviction convicts.

But didn't we just have a case in Atlanta of a guy in Handcuffs overpowering his jailers.

It's no less wrong to have bad security but, I don't trust Thomas and Scalia to be weighing security for security's sake alone here... except for that, they have a point.

But the killings in Atlanta happened in large part because of sloppy application of existing practices, didn't it...? This is a matter for informed decisions, not propaganda.

then unshackled it should be.

People harbor too many prejudices and bias' as it is...a shackled prisoner looks guilty even if they aren't...they look dangerous, even if they aren't... which leaves a powerful image in the minds of a jury.

It's kind of like the judge telling the jury to disregard a statement...it's not as if the jury is going to forget they heard the statement. The jury won't forget the defendant is in shackles and they are going to assume it's for a reason.

The image of a person, brought before you in shackles, will play across the mind and can influence thinking.

It's not justice if you rely on a persons prejudice to obtain a conviction.

This is the same thing as people who give up freedom for (that false sense of) security. The court is part of our freedom, and how we measure justice and due process. If we are willing to compromise on due process for the sake of security, we're no different than those who give up freedom to obtain (a false sense of) security.

knowing that Mr Frist is trying to abolish the filibuster so we can get many more judges like them?