You must log in or register to comment.

johndoe30x1 t1_j9kl3nn wrote

To clarify, his lawyer was not allowed to tell the jury that his client would face life without parole if he weren’t sentenced to death. That is, the jury was prohibited from knowing that the death penalty was not necessary to prevent the possibility of his release. The state Supreme Court in a separate case later ruled that juries can be told. The condemned man has simply won the right to argue that that should have been an option in his case. The state did not even yet rule against him—instead they had ruled he had no right to make that argument and get a ruling. The Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling across party lines has ruled that he can make his appeal.


RSquared t1_j9kpaun wrote

It's an even more interesting ruling because the Arizona Supreme Court basically "nuh uh'd" an earlier USSC ruling under the claim that the ruling wasn't sufficiently different from precedent, even though the USSC ruling had negated an earlier, similar ruling elsewhere. AZSC said, "oh, it's not substantial because it modifies state law not federal law", and USSC just smacked them down on it. I'm honestly surprised that there was a -4 in this one because even the conservative justices probably don't want state courts negating their rulings.


PEVEI t1_j9l2qs2 wrote

Well you have to remember who those four are, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett, who are all basically human ham steaks.


justforthearticles20 t1_j9ldfub wrote

Those four just sit there sounding like Beevis saying "Kill, Kill, Kill, Kill"


PEVEI t1_j9lf4jo wrote

Tbh Coney Barrett looks like the sort who chants that when someone cuts her off in traffic!

Cold DEAD eyes.


SanityIsOptional t1_j9ntcng wrote

Wait, Kavanaugh was the dissenter? Really? I figured it would have been Gorsuch of the 5.


DrakeBurroughs t1_j9oihq0 wrote

No, this tracks. Kavanaugh seems to generally be in favor of USSC rules overriding states. This tracks. What’s surprising is that Gorsuch didn’t join the majority. That strikes me as odd.


MadDjinn t1_j9l2ncf wrote

When you’re not in it for the law or reality, it’s fine to let State courts overrule the SC when the SC got forced to make a decision that could hamstring all states. Just the states that care about the rule of law would be hamstrung and your buddies won’t be use they’ll claim state law is differently experienced.

No worries though, if a state court said roe v wade still existed because the SC is compromised, they’d still pop back in to stop that.


DrakeBurroughs t1_j9oj520 wrote

Well, they’d have to, to be fair. Roe v. Wade gave women a federal right to have an abortion, in any state. When they struck Roe v. Waid down, the right to have an abortion just fell back to the states. In your example, if, say, New York argued Roe v. Wade still existed, would they be arguing that it existed in Texas? New Yorkers still have the right to abortion, but no state court in New York would be allowed to rule that Texas citizens also have that right.


EvlMinion t1_j9lqbu0 wrote

Just wanted to mention the ruling wasn't across party lines - Kavanaugh and Roberts joined in.


razorirr t1_j9n0idd wrote

Kavanaugh does that a surprising amount of time for me. Like this was 5/4, he could have flipped it along with the other R-pointees, but didnt.


N8CCRG t1_j9klsml wrote

Interesting. He challenged the sentencing in 2003 based on a 1994 Supreme Court ruling (basically his lawyer wanted the jury to know that if they chose a life sentence it was without parole, but the court wouldn't let the lawyer tell the jury that), but the Arizona Supreme Court claimed the Supreme Court ruling didn't apply in Arizona. In 2016 the Supreme Court ruled on a different case that it does apply in Arizona, so he challenged again, but this time the Arizona Supreme Court said he wasn't allowed to appeal because the Supreme Court ruling wasn't a "significant change in the law". Supreme Court says Arizona is wrong, he is actually allowed to appeal.


MalcolmLinair t1_j9ln32a wrote

>the Arizona Supreme Court claimed the Supreme Court ruling didn't apply in Arizona.

In other words, the Arizona Supreme Court doesn't understand how the US Federal Justice System works.


DentateGyros t1_j9ludsb wrote

On the contrary, the Arizona Supreme Court knows exactly how the federal justice system works. They just don’t care.


Most_Ruin_3005 t1_j9nka90 wrote

This is, unfortunately, almost every state-level high court these days. They know the the federal government doesn't have real teeth to enforce anything, judicially, right now, so a lot of state courts are just flagrantly ignoring federal rulings.


HugoRBMarques t1_j9lwxu4 wrote

And 4 out of 9 in SCOTUS don't neither.


Rork310 t1_j9nvzeg wrote

Pretty fucking bizarre we've got a situation where 4 of the 9 Supreme Court judges are ok with saying "Nah you don't actually have to listen to the Supreme Court"


Miss_Speller t1_j9mes1s wrote

Or, to quote Justice Elena Kagan:

>I think Kafka would have loved this. Cruz[the defendant] loses his Simmons claims on direct appeal because the Arizona courts say point-blank Simmons has never applied in Arizona. And then he loses the next time around because the Arizona courts say Simmons always applied in California. I mean, tails you win, heads I lose, whatever that expression is? I mean, how—how can you run a railroad that way?

(PDF Source)


PEVEI t1_j9kjmy0 wrote

It still blows my mind that the US has the death penalty, it puts them in SUCH poor company, but they never seem to fully ditch it.

The US more than any other country can afford to securely house dangerous people for an indefinite period, and we all know that "deterrence" is a myth. Just... joint he rest of us in the developed world already!


impulsekash t1_j9kmm2a wrote

> it puts them in SUCH poor company,

We have massive wealth inequality, poor access to health care, our infrastructure is falling apart. We are an undeveloping nation.


HurricaneAlpha t1_j9m3gnp wrote

Which is really sad. Because there was a point there where we could have absolutely crushed it. It's like watching a football team that used to be really good but never closed the deal. And now it just stinks.


Ed_Durr t1_j9m6l3s wrote

I’m curious, when do you consider that departure point to be, and what should we have done differently?


HurricaneAlpha t1_j9m9n17 wrote

I think the civil rights movement was a huge turning point, but if we listened to the socialist messages of those leaders and took them seriously we would be a very different country right now.


Robo_Joe t1_j9kmeh8 wrote

Glorifying violence is kind of our thing, though.


Matobar t1_j9lfpas wrote

It, like many other things, is determined by who is running the show.

Congress is too divided right now to pass a bill outlawing the death penalty, so it's often up to individual jurisdictions to decide what to do about it.

Before President Trump, there hadn't been a federal death penalty execution since 2003. But he carried out 13 executions during the last year or so of his term.

Other states have similar records. Technically California, one of the biggest and most liberal states, has the death penalty as an option still, but it hasn't been used in over 17 years at this point.


WalkerBRiley t1_j9lx62x wrote

Whichever side bans the death penalty loses the right wing entirely, as the right are the biggest defenders of it.

You know, the side the proclaims they follow Christ, the guy who was explicitly against killing?


TheOwlOnMyPorch t1_j9kqf7j wrote

I mean we also don't believe in a general standard of care for non-criminals (universal healthcare, minimum living wage, decent public schools) so it's not that crazy.


pretender80 t1_j9malti wrote

Taxing it's citizens all across the world is also something the US does among poor company.

Death and taxes...


Cyanopicacooki t1_j9kwaer wrote

It's one reason I'll never visit there. Over here in Britain recently an active conversation has started about restoring the death penalty, politicians are endorsing it, and some polls put support way over 50%, so we can't try and claim the moral high ground.


landof10000cakes t1_j9kxu0u wrote

Not all of America has the death penalty.


Cyanopicacooki t1_j9ky2sn wrote

The United States still has the Federal death penalty, I think that the last time it was used was Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma bombing. It's rare, but it is still on their statute book.


Sabatorius t1_j9llptv wrote

You're right about there being a federal death penalty, but there have been 15 federal executions after McVeigh. Incidentally, 13 of those were under the Trump administration, more than any other administration in over 120 years, and breaking a 17-year period of no federal executions.


EvlMinion t1_j9lr8jr wrote

I was thinking that happened all at once, and I was right. Wikipedia says all of those occurred between July 14, 2020 and January 16, 2021.


stircrazyathome t1_j9m2hw2 wrote

Yes, there is still a federal death penalty. Trump made a point to get executions going and removed a moratorium. Thirteen federal inmates were executed during a sixth month period under Trump. Prior to the first execution in July 2020, the U.S. hadn’t executed anyone since 2003. As of July 2021, the moratorium was reinstated.

Considering the fact that 1 in 46 federal death penalty inmates have been exonerated, I’m glad we have the moratorium. It sickens me that our “justice” system allows innocent men and women to be kept in prison on technicalities. 1 in 46 we’re proven innocent. Think of how many are just as innocent but shit outta luck.


HurricaneAlpha t1_j9m4e8m wrote

And honestly, he deserved it.

I'm generally against the death penalty, but if you are 100% guilty of a heinous crime like that, it doesn't bother me on a moral level. Honestly, I wish he got life in prison in solitary. That would be cruel and unusual, though. Which emotionally I'm ok with, but morally I'm not. So morally, the death penalty is the better option.


No_Flounder_9859 t1_j9n0zjq wrote

If you wouldn’t Jill him yourself, don’t impose the death sentence. Simple as.


NomDePlume007 t1_j9kjpfu wrote

And you just know the SCOTUS ruled that way (5-4) because of the concern that a Republican might have cause to challenge a sentence in Federal court.


Hinermad t1_j9kqp0z wrote

Three of the five justices who voted for the majority were appointed by Democrat presidents. Sotomayor and Kagan are Obama appointees, and Jackson was appinted by Biden.


NomDePlume007 t1_j9lbt95 wrote

Yes, of course. All of the liberal justices supported the decision, it's a good policy. But without conservative votes, it wouldn't have passed.


WalkerBRiley t1_j9lxegh wrote

You think you won an argument but you've only made yourself look like a moron. Just saying.