• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

SCOTUS backs man who's lawyers argued because he is black he's more dangerous

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kimawolf

Member
SCOTUS backs man who's lawyers argued because he is black he's more dangerous

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in favor of a death row inmate in Texas whose own lawyers introduced evidence at trial that he was more likely to be dangerous in the future because he is black.

The court ruled that the inmate, Duane Buck, will now be able to go back into a lower court and argue that he should have a new sentencing hearing.

In a 6-2 ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion holding that Buck has "demonstrated both ineffective assistance of counsel" and has an "entitlement to relief."

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

"But our holding on prejudice makes clear that Buck may have been sentenced to death in part because of his race. As an initial matter, this is a disturbing departure from a basic premise of our criminal justice system: Our law punishes people for what they do, not who they are," Roberts wrote.

At the heart of the matter was the testimony provided by Dr. Walter Quijano, one of two psychologists retained by the defense. Quijano testified that the fact that Buck was black "increased the probability" that he would commit future acts of criminal violence. In Texas, so-called "future dangerousness" must be established before a death sentence is rendered.

"Put another way," Buck's current lawyers argued in court papers, "Mr. Buck's lawyers presented evidence that Mr. Buck was more deserving of a death sentence under Texas law because of his race."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/22/politics/duane-buck-supreme-court-death-row-ruling/index.html

so a victory for all out of a heinous case. Of course it was Texas which was arguing against it. Still good to see such a large majority ruling from the court on this issue.
 

A-V-B

Member
How come this man's defense attorneys were trying to get him executed? How do you pitch that to your client as a strategy?

Or did I miss something?
 

Joeku

Member
I've been awake for 24 hours and this is fucking with me. His lawyers were arguing that Texas would inherently see him as more of a threat to the public because he was Black so therefore...what?
 

Luxorek

Member
And Clarence Thomas was in favour of keeping the man's death sentence even when there were concerns the verdict was not fair due to defendant's race. Does not compute.
 
H8YN62D.gif
 
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court’s ruling, in a 12-page opinion that was joined by Justice Samuel Alito. Among other things, Thomas disputed the majority’s conclusion that the jury might have reached a different verdict without Quijano’s testimony before it, describing “the prosecution’s evidence of both the heinousness of” Buck’s crime “and his complete lack of remorse” as “overwhelming.” But Thomas’ primary complaint about the majority’s opinion was the extent to which its “single-minded focus on according relief” to Buck led it to “bulldoze obstacles” “to justify it.” The only silver lining, in Thomas’ view, was that the unique facts of the case are unlikely to occur again, so that the broader impact of today’s decision will be limited.

But you don't know, you fucking piece of shit.
 

andthebeatgoeson

Junior Member
Please, no one act surprised. We know this. Unless you have money, the justice system will fuck you over. And if it bankrupts you, you'll have your poor freedom.
 

Euphor!a

Banned
I don't get this at all. Did their client want to be put to death as opposed to a life sentence or something, and that is why they made such a bizarre argument?
 

Luxorek

Member
? It's Clarence Thomas, it computes just fine.

The whole 'Uncle Tom' thing or whatever you wanna call it, is completely new to me. I figured a black man, especially one so familiar with the workings of the law would be more receptive to the idea that justice isn't as entirely 'blind' as it should be.

But then again, I'm not American.
 

tuxfool

Banned
The whole 'Uncle Tom' thing or whatever you wanna call it, is completely new to me. I figured a black man, especially one so familiar with the workings of the law would be more receptive to the idea that justice isn't as entirely 'blind' as it should be.

But then again, I'm not American.

He is the worst Supreme Court justice full stop.
 

commedieu

Banned
Thomas is the whitest black guy in history.

No. He's just a military grade heap of shit. It's not like white people are inherently bad.

He's a scumbag and a coward because he has a position if great power, but doesn't do anything for his people. But, that's his choice. He screws over people as far as I've seen, equally.

Same with that i-hate-black-people sheriff Clarke. It stings because it's one of your own.
 

Linkura

Member
The whole 'Uncle Tom' thing or whatever you wanna call it, is completely new to me. I figured a black man, especially one so familiar with the workings of the law would be more receptive to the idea that justice isn't as entirely 'blind' as it should be.

But then again, I'm not American.

Clarence Thomas isn't a normal black man.
 

Slayven

Member
The whole 'Uncle Tom' thing or whatever you wanna call it, is completely new to me. I figured a black man, especially one so familiar with the workings of the law would be more receptive to the idea that justice isn't as entirely 'blind' as it should be.

But then again, I'm not American.

He is text book "I got mine", he only saw racism when it benefited him.
 

Air

Banned
If I'm reading this right, the defense played the prosecution because of inherit racism of the courts, which would be a really smart move.

I could be way off though
 
No. He's just a military grade heap of shit. It's not like white people are inherently bad.

He's a scumbag and a coward because he has a position if great power, but doesn't do anything for his people. But, that's his choice. He screws over people as far as I've seen, equally.

Same with that i-hate-black-people sheriff Clarke. It stings because it's one of your own.

Fair point, admittedly my joke wasn't very funny. I don't have a problem if you're black and conservative, I think there are a lot of cross-sections between the two. That said, Clarence Thomas and David Clarke are both basically Uncle Ruckus.
 

Barzul

Member
Thomas is probably one of the if not the most conservative judge in Supreme court history. No coming back for him...even Scalia had moments of reason. Thomas has to be self hating, the only way I can rationalize some of his opinions, like in this case.
 
The whole 'Uncle Tom' thing or whatever you wanna call it, is completely new to me. I figured a black man, especially one so familiar with the workings of the law would be more receptive to the idea that justice isn't as entirely 'blind' as it should be.

But then again, I'm not American.

Remember that technically, Clarence Thomas was actually more conservative than Scalia in terms of their rulings, I believe.
 
The whole 'Uncle Tom' thing or whatever you wanna call it, is completely new to me. I figured a black man, especially one so familiar with the workings of the law would be more receptive to the idea that justice isn't as entirely 'blind' as it should be.

But then again, I'm not American.

Thomas is a complete disgrace. Utterly loathed by every black man and woman who comes across him.

Basically the black Scalia. Completely despicable human being and an AWFUL Justice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom