Court bans shackling of murder defendants

AP - StL Today ^ | May 23, 2005 | Gina Holland

[mbraynard]

It is the 7, not the 2, who are creating new law by misapplying the "precedents" regarding shackles. Also, you are incorrect when you say:

"Thomas, however, thinks that the trial court would have been justified in shackeling the defendant in this particular case based upon the factors that both the majority and the minority opinions say the lower court should have considered."

Thomas disagrees with the need for any kind of special court consideration. Further, the mitigating factors during sentencing were clearly articulted by the jury (all six of them for both murders).

The basis of the law was never that shackling biased the jury but that it interfered with the convicted felon's ability to defend himself - and the modern shackles do not have that effect.

Are you *sure* you read Thomas' dissent? While twice as long as the majority opinion, it is much more clearly articulated.

[hershey]

Well, they'll overpower a few more guards and shoot more judges, etc.. Then the states will scream bloody murder and maybe this will be reversed.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I checked. Rehnquist voted with the majority.

[MIT-Elephant]

Exactly why we can't trust law enforcement to keep us safe - the judges won't even allow it. Yay for the Second Amendment.

[Dog Gone]

We've got a long ways to go before we can call our current Supreme Court "conservative".

[LibWhacker]

I agree - shackles and irons are no longer required, thanks to the advance of technology. A stun belt or harness hides under clothing just fine.

Hidden until it has to be used, that is. At which point the accused's court-provided and groomed (actually, taxpayer provided) boy scout image probably goes right out the window, what with all the screaming, swearing, grunting and frothing at the mouth.

Let's face it, just sitting at the defendant's table carries with it a certain stigma in most people's minds and you can't get away from that. What are we going to do, get rid of the defendant's table? I'm sure liberal lawyers are going to run with the principle underlying in this very, very bad decision and try to make every kind of absurd change they can dream up; they always do.

[IonImplantGuru]

... how about we just wire the felons with 50 or so seperate taser receptors (discreetly hiding under their shirt, of course) and arm the bailiff and guards with remote trigger mechanisms.

There are a number of jurisdictions that do just that (essentially). A 'black box' is strapped around the defendant' waist with electrodes touching bare skin; bailiffs get radio control 'clickers' and can remotely give the miscreant a nice little spinal tap. It's all under the clothing, so not prejudicial to defendants.

[Spktyr]

That's fine - it'd just be a slightly more advanced version of the stun belt that I've been talking about. The Taser-like stun belt or harness has been around for a number of years.

[weegee]

As long as the guard can serve as executioner and kill the murderer in the court room as soon as he is convicted.

As soon as his guilt has been determined, he poses a threat to everyone in the courtroom. Well, actually he posed a threat prior as well but the threat has been established.

[perfect stranger]

Welcome to FR.

"My frist thoughts also.

LOL I've been waiting to see that misspelling for a while.

[visualops]

whoa nellie GMTA :)

Yes, as I hit reply I thought of the Dem donkey which quickly led to "ass" lol

[Calusa]

Darwin Rules.

[HiTech RedNeck]

In another case, the Supreme Court banned that too. The reason given being that it might discourage the defendant from cooperating with his lawyers. The very literature of the taser suit was used as evidence... it boasted of "psychological mastery." Oops.

[goldstategop]

Who cares that a judge was murdered in Atlanta? I like it - nothing like exposing judges to fear.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[goldstategop]

Stephen Breyer is an idiot liberal! This guy already WAS convicted. How more "dangerous" could he get? If he murdered people in front of the jury? Might as well give defendants guns and knives just to equalize things - for appearance's sake.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[goldstategop]

Exactly! The defendant was ALREADY found guilty and in a SENTENCING hearing, the jury determines his punishment - not his fate. The SCOTUS went off the rails on this one. By any stitch of common sense, a murderer is dangerous in that he's already taken a HUMAN LIFE. I don't know what they were thinking back in Washington when this sentence was reversed. The guy's already guilty and its not like being shackled would have changed the outcome. But this decision my friends - explains like nothing else, the essence of liberal jurisprudence - emphasis on form over substance.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[trussell]

That sounds like an awesome idea!

[FreedomHasACost]

The jury may have found a killer guilty but still not consider him dangerous. Yeah right!
In all seriousness I wonder how many jurisdictions will have to change procedure.
I'm glad I can still return fire and handcuff the guys I pick up even though they have not been PROVEN guilty. But wait! that might hurt their reputation if someone sees, maybe we should start just not arresting them I think that follows the same principle that Justice Breyer alluded to. /sarcasm

[itsdeadjim]

Yeah, just send 'em out there in the nude.

[grey_whiskers]

And the Supreme Court continues it's journey off planet Earth, last spotted approaching the Horsehead Horse's Ass Nebula.