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