Supreme Court orders NO SHACKLES allowed on murderers


PDA






marshall3
May 24, 2005, 05:51 PM
The Supreme Court has ruled that it is illegal to shackle convicted murderers as they come to court for the penalty phase of their trial. This was a 7-2 ruling. Have they gone bananas? :banghead:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/11721433.htm

If you enjoyed reading about "Supreme Court orders NO SHACKLES allowed on murderers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Coronach
May 24, 2005, 06:02 PM
Yes and no. They're stating that no visible restraints may be used on someone who is still in the process of being ajudicated by his peers. They have demonstrably caused bias in the eyes of juries. Of course, presumably the jury knows this cat was just convicted of a crime, so I really fail to see the point.

This does not mean that alternative means of restraint cannot be used.

Mike

dasmi
May 24, 2005, 06:04 PM
Have they gone bananas?

Yes.

LawDog
May 24, 2005, 06:06 PM
This does not mean that alternative means of restraint cannot be used.

I don't know, Mike, we're taking hits from Amnesty International and the ACLU for hiding taser belts on our murderers who are being tried.

*sigh*

LawDog

Standing Wolf
May 24, 2005, 06:11 PM
...we're taking hits from Amnesty International and the ACLU for hiding taser belts on our murderers who are being tried.

Is this when I'm supposed to hide under my bed?

Shalako
May 24, 2005, 06:12 PM
If they can't be secured with shackles, how do you protect the other individuals in the courtroom? Wouldn't the balif or whoever have to train a gun on the defendant at all times?

I envision a swat guy in a balcony pointing an M4 at the defendant with a laser sight dancing on his forehead.

Naw, just shackle the guy.

bg
May 24, 2005, 06:15 PM
I would hope the bailiff's in the courtroom would have the convict
surrounded like the old covered wagons vs an Indian attack. Or
maybe just one bailiff with a 12gage staring right at the convict
during sentencing might suffice..The Supremes don't have to
worry about this. Local judges and those in the courtroom do.

And there was no mention of not bringing the convicted into court
in a one man cage/container for sentencing was there ?

Coronach
May 24, 2005, 06:27 PM
I don't know, Mike, we're taking hits from Amnesty International and the ACLU for hiding taser belts on our murderers who are being tried.Right, but there have been no rulings saying you can't, right? Just some whining snot-nosed blissninnies who had their binkies dipped in Tabasco. So, presumably you can still light them up if they pull any stunts.

That Said (tm), I still fail to see the point. This guy just got convicted. The jury knows that. If I was a juror in the Penalty Phase, I would be standing up and pointing and wondering aloud why the heck Charles Manson wasn't in some kind of restraint. Haven't they heard of Atlanta? Do they not value my safety? ;)

Mike

foghornl
May 24, 2005, 06:42 PM
Well, how about using the video conferencing thing as is used in arraignments? Those are being used a lot in some Ohio cities, mainly because you don't have to move prisoners from the jail to the courtroom.

Although, there may be some conflict there about the accused not being able to direcly face the accuser.

Rebar
May 24, 2005, 06:48 PM
It's all good, these guys can be guarded by grandmothers, right?

Right?

shermacman
May 24, 2005, 07:09 PM
Here is what I don't understand: the issue of restraints has been dealt with for the last, oh, say 50,000 years of human existence. Every Federal, state and county court in the US has regulations regarding restraints. So, why now? Why have the Men In Black descended from their priestly posts to issue this decree now? This is not a Constitutional problem regardless of their written and verbal machinations. This is not a crisis in America, it makes no legal sense and it sure makes no common sense. What are they doing?

Guy B. Meredith
May 24, 2005, 07:58 PM
I think I will be opting out as juror for fear of personal safety when the defendent has any possibility of being a violent type. Lack of jurors ought to get the issue back before the Supreme Court.

nico
May 24, 2005, 10:42 PM
Why don't they just lock the defendant to the floor? Walk them in before the jury comes in, secure their feet to the floor and their hands to their feet. But, keep their hands in their lap so all the restraints are below the desk and there's no risk of "tainting" the jury.

shermacman
May 25, 2005, 10:35 AM
I got a better idea! Shackle the jury members!!!

Think about it! It makes total sense! The jury would be immobilized so they couldn't mete out vigilante justice. The accused would be safe! And it has the added bonus of forcing the oppressors of the legal system to experience the reality and the suffering of the poor, misunderstood pawn of the failure of America's social inequities.

I'll just head over to the DU and post my idea there...I bet they will love it!

SteveS
May 25, 2005, 10:37 AM
Why don't they just lock the defendant to the floor? Walk them in before the jury comes in, secure their feet to the floor and their hands to their feet. But, keep their hands in their lap so all the restraints are below the desk and there's no risk of "tainting" the jury.

Some courts already do this. It seems like a good balance of a fair trial and protecting the people in the court from dangerous individuals.

MechAg94
May 25, 2005, 11:05 AM
When I was sitting on a murder trial jury, the defendant was already sitting down when we walked in. Couldn't they cover the bench in front of him so the jury couldn't see his feet and chain him to the floor? The jury could be removed from the court room whenever the defendant has to be moved. They move them in and out all the time anyway. Needless to say, I disagree with the blanket ban on restraints.

Mongo the Mutterer
May 25, 2005, 11:13 AM
this is the SECOND Missouri case these demi-gods in black have struck down in two months. The first one was the 17 yr old POS self confessed murderer that they wouldn't let us execute.

:fire: :fire: :fire:

Master Blaster
May 25, 2005, 11:20 AM
Could we just use a Nail gun and some of those 6 inch framing nails??

WE could nail him to the chair, or better yet a big thick slab of oak.

I'm thinkin a couple of nails through the forehead would do the trick :D

TheEgg
May 25, 2005, 12:30 PM
Ivory tower syndrome.

Don't let reality intrude on your principles.

CAS700850
May 25, 2005, 01:41 PM
I just tried a homicide three weeks ago. The defendat was brought to the courtroom away from any possible jurors, wearing shackles. He was only unshackled in the courtroom, with a half-dozen armed deputies present for security. Also, under the sleeve of his shirt, he wore a different version of the stun belt. Looks like a brace on the forearm, but hits like a taser. Would sure slow him down long enough for someone to pop off a round or two.

R.H. Lee
May 25, 2005, 01:44 PM
This does not mean that alternative means of restraint cannot be used.
Attach a modest amount of C4 to his testicles. Give the bailiff a remote triggering device. The jury will never know it's there.

If you enjoyed reading about "Supreme Court orders NO SHACKLES allowed on murderers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!