In 1992, Charles Rhines brutally stabbed a doughnut-shop worker to death in South Dakota.
In 1992, Charles Rhines brutally stabbed a doughnut-shop worker to death in South Dakota.

CHARLES RHINES is going to be executed in South Dakota’s death chamber for being a homosexual. It seems the jury in the case couldnt live with the fact that if they gave him a life sentence, he might have fun enjoying sex with other men. Huh?

An admitted homosexual, and murderer, it seems the jury was more pissed at the fact the defendant was gay in their quaint little “farming community.” One of the juror’s actually admitted saying such. . . Wait a minute… Huh? That’s right… and as if that isn’t a slap in the face of Lady Justice, the Supreme Court of the United States has outright REFUSED to step in and overturn the biased death penalty verdict and conviction by a jury clearly and publicly swayed by the man’s sexuality. 

Charles Rhines is going to be executed because he’s gay!

Of  course, there is an underlying murder that Mr. Rhines committed after being caught red-handed… burglarizing a doughnut shop by twenty-two-year-old Donnivan Schaeffer. As the victim pleaded for his life, Rhines slammed a knife into the base of his skull killing the victim instantly. Clearly it was an unspeakable act of violence, and it was done during the commission of a felony which made the defendant a candidate for the Death Penalty. 

First-degree murder is a Class-A Felony in South Dakota, punishable by life imprisonment. It’s the only Class-A (Worst Kind) felony in the state. According to the state legislature,  there must be mitigating circumstances in order to find a defendant eligible for the death penalty. Those cisrcumstances are pretty standard across the country. If a murder is committed by someone with a prior conviction of a Class-A or B-felony, or if the homicide was committed during the commmission of a crime (Like Burglary). South Dakota’s law actually outlines a sentence of death may be imposed by a jury if: “the murder was committed for the benefit of the defendant or another, for the purpose of receiving money or any other thing of monetary value.”

Clearly the crime meets the standard of the legislation. However, the jury in this case did not find such, instead sentencing Rhines for his sexual preference. Although it is said that Justice is Blind, this jury considered wether Rhines would be locked away having fun in prison with other males … implying he’d be having sex with them. So, they gave Rhines the death penalty to prevent percieved sexual behavior. This is evidenced by the fact Jurors sent the judge a note asking if Rhines would be housed in general population, or if he would “brag” to “young men” about his crime, maybe he’d even get married and have conjugal visits. They also had a problem with the defendant having a male cellmate. We know all this because myriad jurors made public declarations admitting that (get this) their homophobia warped their deliberations.