Gay man sentenced to death because he was gay

After Mr. Rhines was convicted of murder, significant concerns arose that the jury chose to sentence him to death because he is gay. Jurors in a South Dakota death penalty case thought a gay man might enjoy being sentenced to life in prison with other men, so they voted for death. Last week, civil rights groups, including the ACLU and Lambda Legal, urged the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to accept the case of Charles Rhines, a gay man in South Dakota whose sexual orientation may have played a role in his.

Here’s why. As I noted in June, when the Supreme Court declined to review Mr. Rhines’s death sentence: Some of the jurors who imposed the death penalty on Charles Rhines, who was convicted of murder, have said they thought the alternative — a life sentence served in a men’s prison — was something he would enjoy as a gay man. Some of the jurors who imposed the death penalty on Charles Rhines, who was convicted of murder, have said they thought the alternative — a life sentence served in a men’s prison — was something he would enjoy as a gay man.

This Inmate Argued He Was Sentenced to Death Because He’s Gay. SCOTUS Just Refused to Hear His Case. Jurors thought a gay man would enjoy prison.

Who are the famous inmates at south dakota state penitentiary

Perhaps never in the history of our country has that been more necessary than now. The Court's decision whether to review his case may be the difference between life and death. Inexpensive, too! Mag Promo Independent. And now, Mr. We noticed you have an ad blocker on. Fearless conversations. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. When Charles Rhines, a gay man, was convicted of murdering Donnivan Schaeffer in Januarythe jurors at his trial in South Dakota were tasked with deciding whether he would serve life in prison without the possibility of parole or be sentenced to death.

A fundamental basis of our criminal legal system is that jurors must be fair and free of prejudice in their deliberations and in their decisions. Rhines has urged state and federal courts to review his case because of the Pena-Rodriguez decision and the new evidence that bias based on his sexual orientation played a role in jury's decision to sentence him to death.

Stunning video. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser. Rhines stabbed Schaeffer three times, killing him. Davis and Pena-Rodriguez v. When it is applied in a biased manner, courts should take every possible opportunity to correct that wrong. Nathalie Baptiste. We urge the Supreme Court to take up Mr. Rhine's sexual orientation may never be heard by any court.

It is unclear what is likely to happen if the Supreme Court hears the case. During the sentencing deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge questioning whether Mr. The Sixth Amendment to our Constitution guarantees the right to an impartial jury to all defendants in criminal proceedings. But when the court made its rulings in Buck v.

Richard Saenz is a Senior Attorney and the Criminal Justice and Police Misconduct Strategist at Lambda Legal, the oldest and largest national legal organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those living with HIV. At the trial, the jurors sent the judge a note. NBC News Logo. August