{"id":50941,"date":"2016-06-08T12:51:39","date_gmt":"2016-06-08T07:21:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=50941"},"modified":"2016-08-20T14:52:10","modified_gmt":"2016-08-20T09:22:10","slug":"defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/","title":{"rendered":"Defendants must be allowed to tell jurors in death penalty cases if they are ineligible for parole"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of United States<\/strong>: The Court by a majority of 6:2 reversed the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court where the Court rejected defendant\u2019s alternative argument that the trial court had violated Simmons<\/em> . The Court held that the accused has a right to bring his parole ineligibility to the jury’s attention.<\/p>\n

In this case the Arizona Supreme Court confirmed that parole was unavailable to defendant because under Arizona laws \u201cparole is available only to individuals who committed felony before January 1, 1994\u201d and here defendant has committed his crimes in 2001. However, in Simmons v. South Carolina<\/em>, 512 U.S. 154(1994), it was held \u201cwhere a capital defendants future dangerously is at issue, and the only sentence alternative to death available to the jury is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole\u201d the Due Process Clause \u201centitles the defendant to inform the jury of his parole ineligibility either by a jury instruction or in argument by the council.\u201d Hence Simmons<\/em> establishes defendant’s right to inform his jury of the fact. But the Arizona Supreme Court held that \u201cthe failure to give Simmons instructions was not an error\u201d which was reversed by the Court observing that the due process entitled the defendant to rebut the prosecution’s arguments that the defendant posed a future danger by informing his sentencing jury that he is parole ineligible. \u00a0Moreover, the Court also rejected the Arizona Supreme Court\u2019s holding that Lynch might yet receive parole in the future because the legislature could liberalize parole laws and noted that \u201cthe potential for future \u2018legislative reform\u2019 could not justify refusing a parole-ineligibility instruction. If it were otherwise, a State could always argue that its legislature might pass a law rendering the defendant parole eligible.\u201d \u00a0Thomas and Alito, JJ., gave the dissenting opinion, [Shawn Patrick Lynch v. Arizona<\/em>, 578 U.S __ (2016), decided on 31.5.2016.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of United States: The Court by a majority of 6:2 reversed the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court where the <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":32691,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[3035,6652],"class_list":["post-50941","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-death_penalty","tag-supreme-court-of-united-states"],"yoast_head":"\nDefendants must be allowed to tell jurors in death penalty cases if they are ineligible for parole | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Defendants must be allowed to tell jurors in death penalty cases if they are ineligible for parole\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court of United States: The Court by a majority of 6:2 reversed the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court where the\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-06-08T07:21:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-20T09:22:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/\",\"name\":\"Defendants must be allowed to tell jurors in death penalty cases if they are ineligible for parole | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-06-08T07:21:39+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-20T09:22:10+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887,\"caption\":\"Supreme Court of The United States\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Defendants must be allowed to tell jurors in death penalty cases if they are ineligible for parole\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Defendants must be allowed to tell jurors in death penalty cases if they are ineligible for parole | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Defendants must be allowed to tell jurors in death penalty cases if they are ineligible for parole","og_description":"Supreme Court of United States: The Court by a majority of 6:2 reversed the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court where the","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2016-06-08T07:21:39+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-20T09:22:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/","name":"Defendants must be allowed to tell jurors in death penalty cases if they are ineligible for parole | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","datePublished":"2016-06-08T07:21:39+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-20T09:22:10+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","width":1330,"height":887,"caption":"Supreme Court of The United States"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/08\/defendants-must-be-allowed-to-tell-jurors-in-death-penalty-cases-if-they-are-ineligible-for-parole\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Defendants must be allowed to tell jurors in death penalty cases if they are ineligible for parole"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":32681,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/14\/floridas-capital-sentencing-scheme-violates-the-sixth-amendment\/","url_meta":{"origin":50941,"position":0},"title":"Florida\u2019s capital sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment","author":"Sucheta","date":"January 14, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of United States- Holding the Florida\u2019s capital sentencing scheme as unconstitutional, the Court with the ratio of 8:1 held that the process used to condemn the petitioner, a death row inmate was unconstitutional because a judge rather than a jury was the final arbiter of fact in sentencing,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":49681,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/30\/racial-bias-in-jury-selection-for-death-penalty-case-was-committed-by-the-state-prosecutors\/","url_meta":{"origin":50941,"position":1},"title":"Racial Bias in Jury selection for death penalty case was committed by the State prosecutors","author":"Sucheta","date":"May 30, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of United States:\u00a0Ruling that prosecutors in Georgia violated the Constitution by striking every black prospective juror in a death penalty case against a black defendant, the Court by a majority of 7 to 1 reversed the order of the Georgia Supreme Court and held that the prosecutors of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":84771,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/11\/13\/floridas-new-death-penalty-scheme-declared-unconstitutional\/","url_meta":{"origin":50941,"position":2},"title":"Florida’s new death penalty scheme declared unconstitutional","author":"Saba","date":"November 13, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of Florida: In a 5:2 ruling the Florida Supreme Court held that a unanimous jury recommendation is required before death penalty may be imposed, in accord with the precepts of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Florida\u2019s right to trial by jury, and thereby declared\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":158044,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/09\/18\/parole-cannot-be-denied-merely-on-the-basis-of-the-heinous-nature-of-offence\/","url_meta":{"origin":50941,"position":3},"title":"Parole cannot be denied merely on the basis of the heinous nature of offence","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"September 18, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In the case where the appellant, a TADA convict, had applied for release on parole and was refused the same by the Rajasthan High Court, the bench of Dr. AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ held that the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rule, 1958 that were notified\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":266658,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/10\/mercy-petition-parole-furlough-remission-president-supreme-court-judgments-india-legal-news-updates-research\/","url_meta":{"origin":50941,"position":4},"title":"Whether a Presidential order banning benefit of parole and remission in a mercy petition will create a blanket ban on benefit of furlough? Supreme Court examines","author":"Editor","date":"May 10, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In a landmark ruling, the Division Bench of Dinesh Maheshwari* and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., reversed Delhi High Court\u2019s judgment holding that the Presidential order banning benefit of parole and remission to the appellant will also disentitle him of benefit of furlough. By a detailed judgment the Bench clarified\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-163.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-163.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-163.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-163.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-163.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":268485,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/16\/consecutive-parole-ineligibility-period-cruel-human-rights-law-invalid-canada-supreme-court-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":50941,"position":5},"title":"Canada SC | Imposing consecutive 25-year parole ineligibility periods cruel and unusual by nature, cannot be justified in a free and democratic society","author":"Editor","date":"June 16, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of Canada: A full bench comprising, Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Karakatsanis, C\u00f4t\u00e9, Brown, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ unanimously ruled that imposing consecutive sentences under Section 745.51 of the Criminal Procedure Code, violates Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was observed that\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Canada SC","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50941","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=50941"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50941\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/32691"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50941"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50941"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50941"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}