Court bans shackling of murder defendants

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

[Bogolyubski]

Guilt was already determined. It was the sentencing hearing that was under contest. A person proved guilty of murder is ipso facto a security threat. The decision is (yet another) step toward the ultimate near-term objective of nullifying the death penalty.

[Condor51]

Thanks for the link - and IMHO you're wrong.

The only one's who 'got it right' was Thomas and Scalia. And the dissent written by Thomas' is legally a thing of beauty and also common sense. The majority relied on the wrong precedents in their findings regarding chains and shackles and due process.

[Condor51]

***I agree - shackles and irons are no longer required***

No offense but SCOTUS did not ban shackling of defendants. The headline is wrong and so is the lead paragraph.

Thanks to the link provided by #49, I read the decision and the dissent - and the dissent was RIGHT. In any case all it did was overturn this single case, chains and shackles are still legal and the majority opinion even states that.

The 'problem' according to the majority is that the trial judge allegedly did not follow the rules for putting a defendant IN chains - as they were "visible".

However as Justice Thomas correctly points out, the majority relied on incorrect precedents in reaching their decision. They went back to 17th Century ENGLISH law when chains at that time caused 'pain and suffering' and prevented a defendant from assisting in his own defense. None of which applies with todays chains shackles.

[Leofl]

Can we put them in a big Lucite box instead then?

Maybe without airholes?

[WestTexasWend]

But does this rule out straitjackets? (for defendants and SCOTUS justices)

[frogjerk]

Why do we have to listen to the Supreme Court and their completely asinine decision again? I would disobey them and demand they try to enforce this stupid decision, just like Andrew Jackson did.

[frogjerk]

Get ready for the "Great One" to be on fire today!

[ImphClinton]

Why couldn't the shackles be out of view.

Bring in the jury after the Defendant is tied to his bolted down chair. A specially designed undershirt could do the trick. Although making the lock pick-proof might be difficult it should be possible.

[GladesGuru]

"approaching the Horsehead Nebula."

Perhaps you have the wrong part of the horse? Maybe the other end would be more accurate?

[inquest]

we simply MUST break Marbury vs. Madison or we are toast.

And thereby let Congress pass whatever demented unconstitutional laws they feel like? No thank you. The supreme court has its problems, but striking down too many acts of Congress most definitely isn't one of them. It needs to strike down more, not fewer.

[Celtic Conservative]

First of all, I am a prison officer, so I know from whence I speak.

Secondly,reducing restraints: bad idea, BAD BAD IDEA. Judges need to get a background in the concerns of correctional safety and security. But , then again it's only some lazy civil servant guard who'll get hurt or killed /sarcasm

[Celtic Conservative]

Why couldn't the shackles be out of view. "Bring in the jury after the Defendant is tied to his bolted down chair. A specially designed undershirt could do the trick. Although making the lock pick-proof might be difficult it should be possible."

There are several styles of restraints that can be worn UNDER the clothing, and that are effective and unobtrusive. We use these for court appearances and jury trials. There are choices other than traditional shackles. But if this means NO restraints, then as I said before BAD IDEA!

[Fruit of the Spirit]

It seems to be a very liberal perspective - but what if the judge has a death wish, either for himself or someone else in the courtroom? Maybe it'll come to fruition and there'll be one less liberal judge. ;-)

[visualops]

LOL, scroll back and see how many responses like yours I got hahaha

[Allosaurs_r_us]

I'm sure the only reason we don't charge the victims is because they are no longer with us!

[Reactionary]

"The court ruled , if I understand correctly, that shackles and irons can sway a jury."

Of course. And in idiot Liberal Land there's no such thing as a well-founded belief that a guy with a violent criminal history is any more dangerous than a nun.

[Chef Dajuan]

Oh, you think you know more than Jefferson, do you?

He bemoaned the SCOTUS "Marbury" decision.

YOU need to read the Constitution to see what it ACTUALLY says.

Chain 'em all up...these traitors in black robes,too - along with the rest of the criminal filth.

[Borges]

This comes up again and again. 'Marbury Vs. Madison' was right out of Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. Without it there's no Constitutional Law. There was a movement in the Constitutional Convention to install a legislative overturn of Judicial decisions. It was voted down. Justice Scalia has no problems with MvM

[inquest]

Oh, you think you know more than Jefferson, do you?

In this case, yes. Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was drafted and ratified. And his opinion of judicial review was based far more on how he thought things ought to be than on any kind of scholarly inquiry into the Constitution. His views were in the minority at the time. In Congress, which was dominated by Jefferson's party, there wasn't a single word of criticism of Marshall's holding. The press was likewise mostly supportive or neutral.

[kimmie7]

Ridiculous. Absolutely insane.

I'm now madder than ever about the ridiculous RINO filibuster compromise.