[Matthew.]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/o...death-row.html

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it would not stop South Dakota from killing a man who may have been sentenced to death because he is gay.

Some of the jurors who imposed the death penalty on Charles Rhines, who was convicted of murder, have said they thought the alternative — a life sentence served in a men’s prison — was something he would enjoy as a gay man.

During deliberations, the jury had often discussed the fact that Mr. Rhines was gay and there was “a lot of disgust” about it, one juror recalled in an interview, according to the court petition. Another said that jurors knew he was gay and “thought that he shouldn’t be able to spend his life with men in prison.” A third recounted hearing that if the jury did not sentence Mr. Rhines to death, “if he’s gay, we’d be sending him where he wants to go.”

The justices rejected Mr. Rhines’s plea to hear his bias claim, allowing his death sentence to stand despite disturbing evidence that it may have been the result of anti-L.G.B.T. animus. As usual, the court gave no explanation for its decision not to review the case. But its silence sent a deeply troubling message about the value placed on the lives of L.G.B.T. people.

In court papers opposing Mr. Rhines’s request for a fair sentence, South Dakota attempts to brush off this last remark as a “stab at humor” that didn’t land well. But a note from the jury to the sentencing judge leaves little doubt that this extraordinary assumption infected the jury’s decision-making process: “We know what the death penalty means. But we have no clue as to the reality of life without parole.”

In that note, the jurors went on to ask a series of questions aimed at whether Mr. Rhines would be in proximity to other men in prison. Would he “be allowed to mix with the general inmate population?” Would he be permitted “to discuss, describe or brag about his crime to other inmates?” Would he “have a cellmate?”

In other words, some members of the jury thought life in prison without parole would be fun for Mr. Rhines. So they decided to sentence him to death.

Juror deliberations are considered sacrosanct, but last year the Supreme Court carved out an important exception for cases of racial bias in the jury room. In a race discrimination case, there was evidence that the jury decided to convict an accused man of unlawful sexual contact and harassment because “he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want,” in the words of one juror. The Supreme Court rightly found that such racial animus interfered with an accused’s person right to a fair and impartial trial.

The same rule should apply when anti-L.G.B.T. prejudice taints juror decision-making. To be sure, the history of racism in America is unique and demands unique safeguards. But that does not make anti-L.G.B.T. discrimination any less objectionable, particularly when it may have made the difference between life and death.

It’s difficult to square allowing the state to execute Mr. Rhines because of his sexual orientation with the Supreme Court’s observation this month that states should prevent the harms of discrimination against L.G.B.T. people. And while bias in the criminal justice system is not always explicit, it was in Mr. Rhines’s case. That makes the court’s decision not to step in even more alarming.

Sadly, the court will almost certainly be presented with more requests to review convictions or sentences poisoned by anti-L.G.B.T. bias. It should take the next opportunity to correct this mistake and recognize that prejudice against people who are L.G.B.T. should play no role in America’s criminal justice system.

However, that will probably come too late for Mr. Rhines.

Thoughts on this? I think it’s awful

[RileyH]

Dead @ the whole 'he'd enjoy prison bc he's gay'

[montblanc]

that’s awful

[montblanc]

and it forces the widely believed stereotype that gay men are attracted to every man they see

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by montblanc

and it forces the widely believed stereotype that gay men are attracted to every man they see

And either are prone to rape or enjoy being raped?

I imagine a lot of people won't care because it's a murderer but it sets an awful precedent that gay people will get worse sentences than straight people. If a straight person would have gotten life without parole than a gay person should get the same. It's very much the case that they made the decision to kill this man because he was gay.

That's not justice, that's responding to an awful crime with a hate crime.

[Moniqua]

dehsgusteng

[arista]

He did a Murder.
that's what matters.

[Kazanne]

He murdered someone,so I am not really bothered what happens to him,whether he is gay or not is irrelevant,he took someones life and made their family suffer forever.

[Matthew.]

Originally Posted by arista

He did a Murder.
that's what matters.

Originally Posted by Kazanne

He murdered someone,so I am not really bothered what happens to him,whether he is gay or not is irrelevant,he took someones life and made their family suffer forever.

i guess, but i also think the point is being missed a bit. it’s the fact that the punishment is being increased because of his sexuality that is wrong.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Matthew.

i guess, but i also think the point is being missed a bit. it’s the fact that the punishment is being increased because of his sexuality that is wrong.

Are we sure about that though Matthew , or is the press being over exuberant again, you know how they like to embellish things.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Are we sure about that though Matthew , or is the press being over exuberant again, you know how they like to embellish things.

Pretty much this

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Are we sure about that though Matthew , or is the press being over exuberant again, you know how they like to embellish things.

You can't just discount something like that just because of a hunch. after looking online, a lot of different places are reporting on it. I definitely think it's worth discussing.

Originally Posted by Kazanne

He murdered someone,so I am not really bothered what happens to him,whether he is gay or not is irrelevant,he took someones life and made their family suffer forever.

It certainly isn't irrelevant, the crime actually is irrelevant though. What matters here is whether or not the death sentence was handed down because of homophobia or not and if a straight person wouldn't have received the same punishment. The guy's a murderer, he deserves his conviction BUT if he's been put to death BECAUSE he is gay then that's a problem.... Unless you're saying that hate crimes are okay in situations like this?

Originally Posted by arista

He did a Murder.
that's what matters.

Wrong...unless you want to take the apologist approach to this subject.

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Pretty much this

It really doesn't, I think you three have completely missed the point of why this ruling could potentially be a concern.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Are we sure about that though Matthew , or is the press being over exuberant again, you know how they like to embellish things.

The questions the jurors asked are in the court papers.

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

He murdered someone,so I am not really bothered what happens to him,whether he is gay or not is irrelevant,he took someones life and made their family suffer forever.

so you agree with a gay murderer being treated worse than a straight one?

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by montblanc

so you agree with a gay murderer being treated worse than a straight one?

I never said that though did I ? of course gay or straight should be treated equally,what I actually said was do we actually know it's true or have the press embellished it as they are prone to do.

[reece(:]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

He murdered someone,so I am not really bothered what happens to him,whether he is gay or not is irrelevant,he took someones life and made their family suffer forever.

I think it's more about the fact that equal punishment isn't a thing, if it was a straight man there'd be no death penalty?

South Dakota cancelled

[Withano]

Originally Posted by arista

He did a Murder.
that's what matters.

Originally Posted by Kazanne

He murdered someone,so I am not really bothered what happens to him,whether he is gay or not is irrelevant,he took someones life and made their family suffer forever.

You’ve missed the point entirely

[Niamh.]

If the jurors actually made that decision based on his sexuality then surely that's grounds for a new sentencing hearing? That's horrendous, it's like saying straight women can't be raped because they like men.

[Mystic Mock]

If this report is true then South Dakota has really hit the ****ter.

You won't get the death penalty for being a murderer, but you will get the death penalty for being gay? Wtf!

[Amy Jade]

That's horrific

Yes he commited an awful crime but to give him a harsher sentence based on his sexuality and the odd belife a gay man would enjoy prison life is plain and simple homophobic.

[bots]

The question I would ask is has there been any similar case where a jury decided that a straight male would be better sentenced to death than life imprisonment.

[Greg!]

Stupid jurors, he would HATE sharing jail time with straight men. He would've loved staying in a gals prison with the hags!

[user104658]

Not Brillo thinking that South Dakota is PC . I think perhaps you have a vast misunderstanding of the United States, Brillo.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Not Brillo thinking that South Dakota is PC . I think perhaps you have a vast misunderstanding of the United States, Brillo.

Not in their hearts maybe but they are unlikely to be so blatant about it are they - not if they value their jobs! The PC bogie man will be after them.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Not in their hearts maybe but they are unlikely to be so blatant about it are they - not if they value their jobs!

No, not at all.