A Jury May Have Sentenced a Man to Death Because He’s Gay

[Gerald]

And the Justices Don’t Care.

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 in 1993 have said they thought the alternative — a life sentence served in a men’s prison — was something he would enjoy as a gay man.

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


This seems to me in my opinion that L.G.B.T. Has to move on.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Vendor

This seems to me in my opinion that L.G.B.T. Has to move on.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by this.

[Gerald]

Lawyer who represents L.G.B.T. have hurry days
to help his client.

[August]

He deliberately murdered an innocent person in a most vicious manner. Good riddance I say, regardless of his sexual orientation.

[Reece]

+1 to that.

[Sean C]

I'm very skeptical about the conclusions drawn by the author of the article. She writes:

...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.

Nowhere in that text do I see a solid indication that the jurors believed the man would "enjoy" being in prison because he is gay. What I see is concern that he might find satisfaction in reliving his crime and recounting it to others for the rest of his natural life. Combine that with the fact that he took away another man's life, and I can see why they wouldn't want to allow that to happen.


If the jurors' comments, recounted in the preceding paragraphs, are accurate and if they were made sincerely, that would be terrible and would seem to me to be sufficient cause to review the case. But, I think there is probably a good reason that the justices declined the request. (At least I hope so.)