Posted on 05/23/2005 9:57:00 AM PDT by EveningStar
OK, you can sit next to the brutal murderers during their sentencing trials. We'll make sure you have a paper clip to defend yourself.
That's why no deal is acceptable. Every moderate we've put on that court has turned out to be a closet liberal. We must have more Thomases and Scalias.
Yes; just a flukey as the guy that ran out of the court room some years ago during his sentencing.
The one whose judge was just censured for throwing him a "welcome back" party upon his recent capture and return.
The only thing "flukey" about Atlanta was the killings on the way out the door. Such escpaes happen fairly frequently; attempts even more frequently.
No I will not provide links. Just do a news search,
"And the Supreme Court continues it's journey off planet Earth, last spotted approaching the Horsehead Nebula."
I think that would be the Horse's-a** nebula.
Maybe they would have ruled differently if criminals actually appeared before the Supreme Court itself.
And can anybody explain why this is a horrible, terrible, discriminatory practice for sentencing in capital cases but not at other times. It's clear this Court wants to ban the death penalty, but can only do so by a thousand cuts.
But more than that, as long as all are shackled, then the judge can instruct the jury to that effect and order them to ignore the shackling. But if only a few are shackled, it will serve to reinforce EXACTLY the premise the USSC idiots say they're trying to avoid - singling that criminal out and saying, this guy is a serious threat.
Idiots, I repeat.
Are we even all that sure that Priscilla Owen, Miguel Estrada or any of the other filibustered judges would've joined Scalia or Thomas in their dissent if they were on the Supreme Court? I wish I could be confident that Bush is nominating only rock-solid conservatives, but who knows for sure?
I have an idea. Why not let them go to court without the shackles, but put a sniper in plain view of the "defendant", but out of view of the jury. The jack-o..., er, "defendant" would have a .308 trained on him, KNOWING if he flinches, he is dead, while the jury gets to see how good he is behaving while trying NOT to crap his pants.
Better yet, just place his butt in a basement cell surrounded by about 10,000 volts of costertino wire with a camera on him. Beam the signal up to the courtroom to a TV monitor sitting on the defendant's table. He is free to move around within camera view and the jury doesn't have to see the poor wittle fella in those mean ol' shackles!
Black robed inmates who'll never have a murder defendant in their courtroom. Maybe we oughtta require them to actually sit on the bench for a few, and then see how they feel about it.
Possible "Just Damn" candidate.
The Marshalls shackle Fed inmates before magistrate hearings.
They will also shackle defendants they deem a threat at any time .....the old black box on the cuffs or a waistbelt for the particularly "threatening".
otherwise cuff and ankles shackles with a lead line tween them will do.
Bobby Seale...is he still alive?
THIS could have been prevented, if the prisoner had been shackled.
Judge Killed In Atlanta Courtroom
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/11/national/main679651.shtml
A judge, court reporter and deputy were killed and another deputy was wounded Friday in a shooting at the Fulton County Courthouse in downtown Atlanta. Authorities were hunting for the gunman, who fled in a carjacked auto.
That'll work! :-)
I guess when the defendant shows visible signs of zapping, it's grounds for a mistrial.
Rheinquest, is ready for the gone fishing sign, if he cannot stop this madness from the left wing judges on the supreme court.
This sounds like it belongs in a Mel Brooks movie.
OPs4 God Bless America!
I linked this in Reply #25
They are the only ones with a modicum of sense.
and properly escorted rather than by fembot inane logic
I have
If you had bothered to read the court's opinion, then you would know that the court merely ruled that shackeling as a matter of course is unconstitutional. The court also ruled, however, that shackeling is allowed if the trial/sentencing court makes certain findings specific to the defendant/convicted person i.e., that he or she has a history of violent behavior while in custody and that the failure to shackel the person raises legitimate security concerns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.