|
VitalSigns posted:I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be comfortable trusting that a fair and impartial decision on the merits is being made by the guy who says you and everyone who looks like you doesn't have a soul and the other jurors want you executed as a lesson to white people. Mr. Nice! posted:A sentence of death reached where one of the jurors decided to hang him just because he was black is not one that is "justly reached." Mr. Nice! posted:He should have his chance to have a hearing on the matter. evilweasel posted:into great detail about if the decision that yes, you can look behind a jury verdict where a juror was an unabashed racist is retroactive or not and if that decision is correct, but what you have decided to defend here is that an affidavit that a man is a giant racist and he used his racist views in informing his decision could not reasonably create any dispute over if the racist had an impact.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 08:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Tharpe never shown that race played a factor in his sentencing. He has never presented evidence demonstrating that to any court. All that has happened is that one of his lawyers visited a drunk juror years later and elicited a bunch of racist comments. OK sounds good, let's get 12 whitey-hating copies of this juror and have them sit anytime you're a defendant, I'm sure you'll be all "well without a Jedi mindmeld I can't know for 100% sure that their hatred of me personally is affecting their judgment of my case, so obviously it is fine and I'm getting a fair trial here."
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 08:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:OK sounds good, let's get 12 whitey-hating copies of this juror and have them sit anytime you're a defendant, I'm sure you'll be all "well without a Jedi mindmeld I can't know for 100% sure that their hatred of me personally is affecting their judgment of my case, so obviously it is fine and I'm getting a fair trial here."
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:OK sounds good, let's get 12 whitey-hating copies of this juror and have them sit anytime you're a defendant, I'm sure you'll be all "well without a Jedi mindmeld I can't know for 100% sure that their hatred of me personally is affecting their judgment of my case, so obviously it is fine and I'm getting a fair trial here." DACK FAYDEN posted:You don't even have to find someone who hates all whiteys in general. Just get twelve goons and that racist fucker will get the chair.  If I ever shoot somebody with a shotgun, roll them into a ditch for their husband and children to find, shoot them again to finish them off, then kidnap and rape their sister, I am perfectly fine with being executed as an example to people of all races that such behavior is not acceptable, irrespective of any personal animus a juror may hold towards me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Let me try explaining this a different way: the question is not whether allowing Gattie on the jury was an error. It was. If Tharpe were going on trial today, it would be wrong to have him on the jury. The question is, having discovered this error decades later, is it sufficient to go back and grant Tharpe a new trial or overturn his sentence? It is not. actually no, that's not the question that was presented to the supreme court, despite your urgent attempts to defend the worst justices on the court. this is a question about if he's got enough evidence that an appeal of the merits decision is permissible. it is a much, much, much, much, much lower standard which is why you keep ignoring it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns, who I was responding to, was directly addressing the merits question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
If you do all that and get convicted and sentenced to execution on even the partial basis of your race, you're not serving as an example to anyone of how your behavior is unacceptable, you're serving as an example of a racist justice system. Put another way, people should not ever be convicted and sentenced on anything but the merits of the case brought against them. Even if someone is obviously guilty based on all of the evidence, if they got their sentence because of their race then that's not the justice system working. This applies flipped around in whatever order. If you're obviously innocent based on the evidence but you get convicted based on race that judgment is wrong. If you're innocent and get acquitted on the basis of race that judgment is wrong. If you're guilty and get acquitted on the basis of race that judgment is wrong. Following that, any judgment at all that says that a verdict against someone on the basis of anything other than the evidence was proper is wrong. You can madlibs in whichever findings and defendants you want, however many appeals layers you want, but if you're supporting a verdict -- even a "correct" verdict -- against someone based on anything but evidence, that is wrong. You may be punishing a guilty party or letting an innocent person go free, but it's still not the result of a fair justice system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Let me try explaining this a different way: the question is not whether allowing Gattie on the jury was an error. It was. If Tharpe were going on trial today, it would be wrong to have him on the jury. The question is, having discovered this error decades later, is it sufficient to go back and grant Tharpe a new trial or overturn his sentence? It is not. If you are tried by peers with racial animus against you, I will make dead certain to fulfil any civic duty I am given to both repair injustice done to you and ensure further injustice is not perpetuated down the road due to any blind eye I may be tempted to turn toward the very real issue of race in trials and sentencing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
If norway can figure out how to humanely treat Anders Brevig we can figure out how to do the same with run of the mill rapist-murderers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:VitalSigns, who I was responding to, was directly addressing the merits question. But that's not the point. The point is he met the standard for an appeal and was improperly denied. This isn't a contentious decision from the majority that is only being stretched as one by the crazy dissent and you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Let me try explaining this a different way: the question is not whether allowing Gattie on the jury was an error. It was. If Tharpe were going on trial today, it would be wrong to have him on the jury. The question is, having discovered this error decades later, is it sufficient to go back and grant Tharpe a new trial or overturn his sentence? It is not. Let's not haul off and justify imperfect means with ends we are "perfectly fine with"
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
Full serious mode for a sec, I was not expecting a politigoon of any flavor to reach for an argument where, in criminal justice, ends justify the means in the context of sentencing, especially death sentencing. If the state wants sentences to stick, it is perfectly welcome to better screen jurors for open hatred against protected classes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Full serious mode for a sec, I was not expecting a politigoon of any flavor to reach for an argument where, in criminal justice, ends justify the means in the context of sentencing, especially death sentencing. DR loves the right wing of the Supreme Court and will rush to defend it without ever bothering to figure out if the arguments those justices are making make any actual sense. I don't know why. Probably something to do with guns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Let me try explaining this a different way: the question is not whether allowing Gattie on the jury was an error. It was. If Tharpe were going on trial today, it would be wrong to have him on the jury. The question is, having discovered this error decades later, is it sufficient to go back and grant Tharpe a new trial or overturn his sentence? It is not. As we know, the case isn't about whether to throw out that sentence or not; it his for his ability to get his appeal heard on the matter. Putting that aside for the moment though; why would you agree that it was an error to have him on the jury in the first place, but not feel that itself would merit the retrial? If one of the people in the group of people in charge of unanimously deciding a person's fate shouldn't have actually been part of that group; then that is a serious miscarriage of justice. The fact that you agree that it was wrong for the person to be on the jury, but also argue that it doesn't merit a retrial is weird. How do you reconcile this? The fact that you feel he is guilty has no bearing here; plenty of guilty people go free because of procedural gently caress ups. And they should. Justice necessitates a just system; and there's absolutely nothing just about having someone judged by another who feels they aren't even a person. A jury is supposed to come to a conclusion of guilty based on the facts and jurors who are incapable of doing so are not supposed to be on the jury. The fact that such a person made it onto his jury indicates there is a miscarriage here. Certainly there is enough of an indication to warrant his appeal actually being heard on its merits rather than assuming it is meritless (which again, is absurd for you to argue since you've already admitted the person being on the jury was an error).
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Let me try explaining this a different way: the question is not whether allowing Gattie on the jury was an error. It was. If Tharpe were going on trial today, it would be wrong to have him on the jury. The question is, having discovered this error decades later, is it sufficient to go back and grant Tharpe a new trial or overturn his sentence? It is not. I'm glad you're not trying to make the ludicrous argument that we must assume a racist jury is going to provide someone a fair trial unless they have a mind-reading fortune teller there to testify that their prejudice will definitely affect the trial. Indeed, we're justified in concluding immediately that it is impossible to guarantee someone a fair trial from a prejudiced jury and that they have a right to demand a new jury. But in that case I don't get your argument that since it already happened it's fine. If it's an error to put racists on the jury because it's good reason to believe the defendant won't get a fair trial, then why does it become okay if we find out after-the-fact that we have good reason to believe the defendant didn't get a fair trial? Either way we have the exact same reason to believe there's no fair trial. Dead Reckoning posted:
Right, now you're falling back on luridly describing the defendant's crimes in order to make an emotional argument that this guy is really bad, okay. Like I'm supposed to go "oh my stars, this is a Bad Guy, let's get rid of the constitution and any pretense of a fair trial, that's not for Bad Guys!" Why even waste money on the theater of a trial if that's what we believe. Dispense with all the nonsense about remorse and rehabilitation along with the sentencing hearing and just take 'em out behind the courthouse after the verdict and shoot 'em (maybe after a paper bag test if this treatment is only supposed to be applied to black people). Dispense with the trial too, if you also feel it's fine for a racist jury to convict people in the first place. Constitutional rights are for all of us, if due process and a fair trial don't protect the rights of someone we think is a Bad Guy, then they don't protect our rights either, anyone can always make the argument that we should be presumed guilty based on the Really Bad allegations against us. Maybe this guy is Really Bad and should be executed and would be executed after a fair hearing, in that case give him one. If he gets life in prison instead, so be it, that shouldn't concern us too much even if he is guilty. What should concern us is all the other people against whom the evidence is maybe not as clear-cut but who must go up against racist juries; if this mistrial gives the state and its prosecutors an incentive to actually screen jurors and make sure they're not prejudiced against defendants then that's a good thing and a much better contribution to the public good than executing one Bad Guy who will never be a free man again regardless of the outcome of this case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 02:23
|
|
|
Is it just me or is there a real lack of distinguishing between reversible error and harmless error in a thread about the Supreme Court of the United States?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
What is going to get looked at now that this gets to be looked at? If, say, the guy had been posting to twitter for years against the death penalty, but clearly didn't give a gently caress here because it was a black person, would that matter? The Court ruled correctly, but DR isn't entirely wrong in that this guy was probably gonna get death either way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:What is going to get looked at now that this gets to be looked at? SCOTUS acknowledges that in the decision.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:What is going to get looked at now that this gets to be looked at? So he gets a new punishment phase and is given the death penalty again? Sounds good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:What is going to get looked at now that this gets to be looked at? If it's overturned he'll get a new death penalty hearing. He'll probably get sentenced to death again because of the heinous nature of his capital crime. This by no means is good reason to deny his constitutional rights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
botany posted:SCOTUS acknowledges that in the decision. Yeah, all nine of them believe that to be the case. Thomas closes his dissent calling the opinion "ceremonial handwringing".
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Yeah, all nine of them believe that to be the case. Thomas closes his dissent calling the opinion "ceremonial handwringing". Of course he does. "Who cares if he was denied constitutional rights, it would have ended up the same way anyway." Despite the horrendous nature of his crime I hope he ends up getting life without parole because the death penalty is abhorrent, and I want people to look back at the results and wonder what other people may have been convicted and/or executed due to the overall racist shithle nature of the American justice system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:So he gets a new punishment phase and is given the death penalty again? Sounds good. I was actually asking but according to your mirror-self, yes. I kind of hope he ends up with life instead but in the end gently caress that guy. Mr. Nice! posted:If it's overturned he'll get a new death penalty hearing. He'll probably get sentenced to death again because of the heinous nature of his capital crime. This by no means is good reason to deny his constitutional rights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
Hobbes and I both got sent to riker's island along with 40-50 other ffxiv posters. It's a testament to our laziness and lack of shitposting that such a large number of us haven't gotten new avatars yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
"ceremonial handwringing" Jesus Christ, I didn't think I'd see a Justice of the Supreme Court suggest we should just be taking people out back and shooting them as long as we're sure enough they're guilty that a fair trial would be a foregone conclusion and thus a useless affectation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"ceremonial handwringing" The issue at hand is the punishment, not the finding of guilt, no?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:The issue at hand is the punishment, not the finding of guilt, no? Yes, but the issues of due process are the same for a trial to determine guilt and a sentencing hearing to determine punishment. VVV My fault, my wording wasn't clear VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Jan 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
I misunderstood your post, then. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"ceremonial handwringing" Have you met the Supreme Court?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 07:18
|
|
|
I’d actually want to meet RBG and Roberts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 07:33
|
|
|
Theyre probably all pricks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 08:11
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Hobbes and I both got sent to riker's island along with 40-50 other ffxiv posters. It's a testament to our laziness and lack of shitposting that such a large number of us haven't gotten new avatars yet. One of the rare moments when the FFXIV thread wasn't a dumpster fire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 08:13
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:One of the rare moments when the FFXIV thread wasn't a dumpster fire. The Rick Perry moment was good too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 11:07
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:What is going to get looked at now that this gets to be looked at? If I'm reading correctly, the majority more or less agrees that the 11th Circuit properly denied Tharpe a certificate of appealability, because the district court shot him down for multiple reasons, and for some of those reasons, no reasonable judge could find an abuse of discretion. However, as the majority interprets the CoA's decision (worth noting that Thomas disagrees with this), it limited its denial to one specific area - prejudice - that the majority is less comfortable with. They write an opinion that says, "It might be correct that you denied him, but don't do it the way you did it. We could consider other grounds on which you may have been correct, and affirm on those, but we're not going to, because this looks really bad." To Thomas, this is a giant waste of time and bending the rules due to bad facts. Skimming over the briefs, he may be legally correct. On the other hand, doing that to avoid the appearance of endorsing racism (super-duper racism at that) in a capital case isn't the worst thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
zzyzx posted:If I'm reading correctly, the majority more or less agrees that the 11th Circuit properly denied Tharpe a certificate of appealability, because the district court shot him down for multiple reasons, and for some of those reasons, no reasonable judge could find an abuse of discretion. However, as the majority interprets the CoA's decision (worth noting that Thomas disagrees with this), it limited its denial to one specific area - prejudice - that the majority is less comfortable with. They write an opinion that says, "It might be correct that you denied him, but don't do it the way you did it. We could consider other grounds on which you may have been correct, and affirm on those, but we're not going to, because this looks really bad." By this synopsis it actually sounds like Thomas might be right? I'm never going to be too sad about extra appeals in a death penalty case though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 08:20
|
|
|
By all accounts all of them range from tolerable to very pleasant to socialize with, aside from Gorsuch. This isn't surprising; in addition to whatever you may think of their views or legal knowledge/opinions, this is also a collection of public, political figures. Gorsuch appears to be the jurisprudential Cruz.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:By all accounts all of them range from tolerable to very pleasant to socialize with, aside from Gorsuch. This isn't surprising; in addition to whatever you may think of their views or legal knowledge/opinions, this is also a collection of public, political figures. Or this century's James McReynolds
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:By all accounts all of them range from tolerable to very pleasant to socialize with, aside from Gorsuch. This isn't surprising; in addition to whatever you may think of their views or legal knowledge/opinions, this is also a collection of public, political figures. when Ginsburg dies in battle with the Great Wyrm next month, Ted Cruz will be the SCOTUS Cruz exploded mummy posted:Or this century's James McReynolds I found out this man existed from the Dollop and my god, his shitheadery is majestic i love that no other justices attended his funeral, they just sent one clerk who drew the short straw Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jan 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:By this synopsis it actually sounds like Thomas might be right? First, if you have the time, go read the dissent yourself. It was interesting* and very readable to a non-lawyer, provided you remember to skim the citations and a bit of the jargon. Regarding the summary and him being right: not really. The dissent actually hinges on why Tharpe doesn't have a right to appeal citing the prior findings of the district court, how the Peña-Rodriguez decision doesn't give retroactive relief, and that no court at the time (1991, for reference) would've concluded that racial animus was enough to override Georgia's no impeachment law. While Thomas did close with remarks on how fruitless this would be, he mainly used that as a cudgel against the majority to remind them of the victim of Tharpe's crime. It seems to be, as Evilweasel implied, that the court just went: "No, ya dingus. You need to consider this poo poo." They also believed that the outcome would likely not change. But it doesn't matter, the question before them was if the 11th was incorrect in denying appeal, not if Tharpe had proved animus. As an aside, I'm not sure how the original court could've ruled on racial animus when they were barred from providing relief based on the law at the time. *Obviously, this doesn't mean that a 15-loving-page dissent is warranted in response to the terse per curiam. BirdOfPlay fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Jan 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
tsa posted:Solitary confinement is undeniably torture, so there's pretty much no good option for people who are too dangerous to be in a general prison population. Would you volunteer to be the cellmate of someone who was unremorseful after committing brutal rape and murder? Would you want to be anywhere near them? Some people are just loving monsters and there's nothing that can be done, sadly -- your choices are either going to be giving them death or a lifetime of torture. And yet other countries manage this problem. Are Americans just uniquely bad people?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 09:48
|
|
