Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Supreme Court orders NO SHACKLES allowed on murderers

Discussion in 'Legal' started by marshall3, May 24, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. marshall3

    marshall3 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    326
    Location:
    Signal Mountain, TN
  2. Coronach

    Coronach Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    11,109
    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
     
  3. dasmi

    dasmi Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,781
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Yes.
     
  4. LawDog

    LawDog Moderator Emeritus cum Laude

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,101
    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
     
  5. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Is this when I'm supposed to hide under my bed?
     
  6. Shalako

    Shalako Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    629
    Location:
    The most tactical cubicle in Sacramento
    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.
     
  7. bg

    bg Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Location:
    When you find out, let me know..
    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 ?
     
  8. Coronach

    Coronach Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    11,109
    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
     
  9. foghornl

    foghornl Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    7,403
    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.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2005
  10. Rebar

    Rebar member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    1,867
    It's all good, these guys can be guarded by grandmothers, right?

    Right?
     
  11. shermacman

    shermacman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,754
    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?
     
  12. Guy B. Meredith

    Guy B. Meredith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,268
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    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.
     
  13. nico

    nico Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,212
    Location:
    Baltimore/Laurel, MD
    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.
     
  14. shermacman

    shermacman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,754
    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!
     
  15. SteveS

    SteveS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    866
    Location:
    MI
    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.
     
  16. MechAg94

    MechAg94 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    4,732
    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.
     
  17. Mongo the Mutterer

    Mongo the Mutterer Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,242
    Location:
    St. Louis
    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:
     
  18. Master Blaster

    Master Blaster Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,887
    Location:
    Delaware home of tax free shopping
    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
     
  19. TheEgg

    TheEgg Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,363
    Ivory tower syndrome.

    Don't let reality intrude on your principles.
     
  20. CAS700850

    CAS700850 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,304
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    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.
     
  21. R.H. Lee

    R.H. Lee Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    7,377
    Location:
    CA
    Attach a modest amount of C4 to his testicles. Give the bailiff a remote triggering device. The jury will never know it's there.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page