Man Was Sentenced to Die Because Jurors Thought He'd Enjoy Men's Prison Too Much

[gaymer77]

SOURCE

In South Dakota, Charles Rhines sits on death row as he has for over twenty-five years. After Mr. Rhines was convicted of murder, significant concerns arose that the jury chose to sentence him to death because he is gay.

During the sentencing deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge questioning whether Mr. Rhines would be allowed to marry or have conjugal visits; or be allowed to create a group of followers or admirers; or have a cellmate, should he be sentenced to life in prison. Less than eight hours later, the jury voted to impose the death penalty. Later it became known that some of the jurors who sentenced Mr. Rhines to death “knew that he was a homosexual and thought he shouldn’t be able to spend his life with men in prison” and thought that “if he’s gay, we’d be sending him where he wants to go if we voted for [life in prison].” These comments and the note to the judge raise serious doubts regarding the fairness and impartiality of the jury’s decision.

The Sixth Amendment to our Constitution guarantees the right to an impartial jury to all defendants in criminal proceedings. A fundamental basis of our criminal legal system is that jurors must be fair and free of prejudice in their deliberations and in their decisions. And as Chief Justice Roberts has explained, “[o]ur law punishes people for what they do, not who they are.” Yet, despite this guarantee, history has shown that bias has infected jury decisions even to the point of sentencing someone to death.

Just two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in a groundbreaking decision, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, that when it is clear that jurors made statements that rely on racial stereotypes or hate to convict someone of a crime, then the Sixth Amendment guarantees that person the right to introduce those statement to show that he or she has not been fairly tried by an impartial jury.

Mr. Rhines has urged state and federal courts to review his case because of the Pena-Rodriguez decision and the new evidence that bias based on his sexual orientation played a role in jury’s decision to sentence him to death. So far, no court has heard this strong evidence of bias. And now, Mr. Rhines is again asking the Supreme Court to settle the important question of whether the rule they announced in Mr. Pena-Rodriguez’s case applies to Mr. Rhines.

The Court’s decision whether to review his case may be the difference between life and death. If the Court does not accept review, clear evidence of jury bias based on Mr. Rhine’s sexual orientation may never be heard by any court. If our legal system allows anti-gay bias in jury deliberations, the integrity of our entire court system is undermined. The death penalty is an irreversible and harsh misuse of government power. When it is applied in a biased manner, courts should take every possible opportunity to correct that wrong.

There is a long, painful history of formal discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people that continues despite huge advancements in the law and in society. Within the past twenty-five years, less than the time Mr. Rhines has been on death row, the Supreme Court has recognized that laws based on moral objections against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people and that laws criminalizing them are unconstitutional. Despite the Court’s rulings, discrimination and prejudice against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people remain, even in the legal system.

The prevalence and persistence of discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people illustrate the need for safeguards in our legal system including in jury deliberations to ensure fairness. We already have other safeguards in our justice system - such as voir dire and jury instructions that clearly command that bias cannot be part of the deliberations – but when those fail to weed out bias then the court must act to preserve the integrity of our justice system. Too often, jurors with biases against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people serve simply because a judge does not allow questioning, or believes that the juror can be impartial if they agree to set biases aside.

We urge the Supreme Court to take up Mr. Rhines’ request for review of his case because the death penalty is an issue that impacts LGBT people. In some cases, such as this one, keeping our courts fair is a matter of life and death.

Sentenced to death instead of life without parole because the jurors felt he would enjoy prison too much if he was allowed around other inmates....This is America not some third world theocracy ruled nation like Brunei.

[IIamaKing]

This happened 25 years ago.

[GrinnersGrin]

Better defend this murderer from a few decades ago because we have the same fetish. Wat

[arandomuser]

This happened 25 years ago.

right, isnt that crazy that 25 years ago this was fine? and now it does seem kind of plain wrong the way the jurors thought about the case, definitely should be reviewed.



just so were clear im in favor of the death penalty, but the man had the right to an impartial jury and this jury was CLEARLY not impartial.

[Skulltaker]

This happened 25 years ago.

Was there a significant change in the justice system since then that would make sure that something like this cannot happen anymore?

[derpkitteh]

so stick him in a women's prison instead.

idk, i don't agree with the death penalty anyway. put him in for life and let big bubba fill that ass for the rest of forever. at least he's not out causing trouble.

[araine]

This happened 25 years ago.

And you think the country is more progressed today? really wake up we got Donny as president we got morons thinking abortion should be punished with death penalty really we have more in common with the Talibans than what separates us.

Sadly i think this could happen again in a jury room today. and sadly i have zero confidence that our courts will correct this massive miscarriage of justice. sadly i think the courts are so corrupt right now that they care more about pleasing the right wing extremists than doing what the law demands them to do.

- - - Updated - - -

Was there a significant change in the justice system since then that would make sure that something like this cannot happen anymore?

Nope. it is as bad as it has ever been and a strong case can be made that it has gotten worse

[gaymer77]

This happened 25 years ago.

Yes the case is from 25 years ago. I'm well aware of this. The ruling in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado came about in March 2017 which is two years and a month ago. The Charles Rhines case (you know what the article is about) happened in 1996. It didn't happen in the 50's or 60's like many other biased cases have. This was in more recent years. This does not change the fact that a man was sentenced to death because jurors felt he would enjoy being behind bars too much.

[Sting]

Nope. it is as bad as it has ever been and a strong case can be made that it has gotten worse

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...act-signed-law

:thinking:

[Shadowferal]

*waves it away*

He'll likely die of old age....

[Flarelaine]

I find it mildly amusing that by denying him a life in prison, they gave him exactly that.

[Skulltaker]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...act-signed-law

:thinking:

Isn't that about rehabilitation? Not from the US and not really up to date. But it's kind of hard to be rehabilitated if you've been sentenced to death because some assholes thought you'd 'enjoy prison to much'.

[Yadryonych]

Why don't just put him in woman's prison then

[AlphaOut]

I mean, there are alternative lifestyle units in prison for a reason. To make it more adaptable. Sure it appears to be prejudice. But it's either pay for him to live a life in prison or kill him and be done with it. Heartless to some extent, but he should be making the argument for an alternative lifestyle unit, and why they exist. Draw conclusions from there. I'm neither for him or against him. I cant morally support a murderer, and if a murderer is found guilty, their life should be taken regardless. Prisons are full enough as it is.

[Sting]

Isn't that about rehabilitation? Not from the US and not really up to date. But it's kind of hard to be rehabilitated if you've been sentenced to death because some assholes thought you'd 'enjoy prison to much'.

Not from the US either but I think it's wrong to claim that everything is as shit as it ever was and has only decreased in the last few years.

Being from the EU, the whole trial by jury seems ridiculous to begin with. We don't ask random people here to decide a person's fate.

- - - Updated - - -

Rhines, caught burglarizing a doughnut shop in Rapid City, South Dakota by an employee named Donnivan Schaeffer, stabbed the 22-year old in the abdomen and back. Then, as Schaeffer pleaded for his life, Rhines thrust the blade into the base of his skull.

A real nice man I'm sure he deserves some sympathy.

[BananaHandsB]

Bias juries are nothing new (obviously as this case is 25 years old). Unfortunately, it happens and that's why appeals exist. A lot of details and specifics seem to be left out of the article which make this hard to really discuss. What exactly is the evidence that showed bias? The article was very vague about that. They wrote this quote: "[some of the jurors] knew that he was a homosexual and thought he shouldn’t be able to spend his life with men in prison” and thought that “if he’s gay, we’d be sending him where he wants to go if we voted for [life in prison].” but didn't cite anyone with the quote. It's extremely important who said that and very strange the citation was left out. Why has this taken 25 years for his lawyer to file appeal? Was an appeal filed and rejected previously? Need some more information before we can really draw any conclusions.

[Moralgy]

Better defend this murderer from a few decades ago because we have the same fetish. Wat

There is such a thing as not defending a murderer and saying "that reasoning was fucked up".

Good outcome, horrible reasoning.

Also, what fetish are you talking about?

[IIamaKing]

This does not change the fact that a man was sentenced to death because jurors felt he would enjoy being behind bars too much.

Yeh, sure, 25 years ago. It wasnt a great time for homosexuals. I remember plenty of news reports of gays being beaten and killed from the mid 90s. Wonderfully we have progressed past that, and I do not think such a thing would happen now and if it did, would be reviewed and likely overruled.

So a comment like

This is America not some third world theocracy

is fairly moot. This will be taken up at a higher court, Im sure and then the guy can sit in jail w/o parole for the rest of his life.

Anyone saying that the US has not progressed in the LBGQT arena in the last 30 years is flat out lying or stupid.

The fact that he was sentenced to death is abhorrent, but it was 25 years ago and will likely be (and should be)rectified.

[Freshouttajail]

And you think the country is more progressed today? really wake up we got Donny as president we got morons thinking abortion should be punished with death penalty really we have more in common with the Talibans than what separates us.

Sadly i think this could happen again in a jury room today. and sadly i have zero confidence that our courts will correct this massive miscarriage of justice. sadly i think the courts are so corrupt right now that they care more about pleasing the right wing extremists than doing what the law demands them to do.

- - - Updated - - -



Nope. it is as bad as it has ever been and a strong case can be made that it has gotten worse

You need to chill before people put you in your place after saying so many objectively wrong statements.

[Independent voter]

Rhines, caught burglarizing a doughnut shop in Rapid City, South Dakota by an employee named Donnivan Schaeffer, stabbed the 22-year old in the abdomen and back. Then, as Schaeffer pleaded for his life, Rhines thrust the blade into the base of his skull.

https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/...213672629.html


That's a pretty brutal murder he committed and during a felony robbery his was committing at the time.