Bronc24 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 You are allowed the opinion that he's getting what he deserves and that's fine. That's not the real question, however. The Bill of Rights specifically protects US citizens against cruel and unusual punishment. It has nothing to do with the crimes he committed. What about the cruel and unusual punishment the guard and family faced? Where was your Bill of Rights there? I love how the Bill of Rights can protect the living criminal, but has done nothing to protect the family of the victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 What about the cruel and unusual punishment the guard and family faced? Where was your Bill of Rights there? I love how the Bill of Rights can protect the living criminal, but has done nothing to protect the family of the victim. Are you really that dumb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Are you really that dumb? For caring more about the victim and his family than the murderer? I suppose so. I hope he rots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Would putting him into the GP not be "cruel and unusual" punishment for all of the other prisoners / this guy's potential bunk-mate? Not really. The prisoners are (mostly) all criminals and deserve to be where they are. The guards, callous as it may sound, know the risks going in and are well-compensated union employees. Give him his own cell and lock him down most of the time. Whatever you have to do to minimize the risk, but the punishment must not be cruel or unusual. ...OR like you're proposing, we could just stick with our our set inalienable rights until they become inconvenient... Maybe they should install Internet in his cell and let him play Second Life. I mean, there's LOADS of people who're un-incarcerated that spend 23 hours a day doing that, and it's not deemed cruel or unusual. C'mon you're better than that. I guess the answer must be obvious even to you if you're throwing up such a blatant strawman. For caring more about the victim and his family than the murderer? I suppose so. I hope he rots. No dipshit, for complaining that the Bill of Rights was not applied to the dead victim of a violent crime or his family. You're trying to pull at some heartstrings but you're not making any sense at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Not really. The prisoners are (mostly) all criminals and deserve to be where they are. The guards, callous as it may sound, know the risks going in and are well-compensated union employees. Only...not. That's a REALLY thankless job they have. But you're right...reasonable risk is implied. No dipshit, for complaining that the Bill of Rights was not applied to the dead victim of a violent crime or his family. You're trying to pull at some heartstrings but you're not making any sense at all. I'm curious as to whether or not he can quote the exact amendment that was violated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Only...not. That's a REALLY thankless job they have. But you're right...reasonable risk is implied. My bad, I thought all union employees were over-compensated. I'm curious as to whether or not he can quote the exact amendment that was violated... I would love to see that post. Yes, please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 My bad, I thought all union employees were over-compensated. Nope, and not all unions suck. Just most of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 My bad, I thought all union employees were over-compensated. I would love to see that post. Yes, please! http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/12/power-unions-average-stagehand-lincoln-center-nyc-makes-290k-year Some do pretty well moving chairs around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 http://washingtonexa...makes-290k-year Some do pretty well moving chairs around. Whenever I go to the symphony and I see these guys come and and to just that, move chairs, I wondered how much they made. It's the same two guys that come out between pieces and move chairs and music stands. Sometime the move a piano but it is raised and lowered from below stage. That's some pretty nice compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) Not really. The prisoners are (mostly) all criminals and deserve to be where they are. The guards, callous as it may sound, know the risks going in and are well-compensated union employees. Give him his own cell and lock him down most of the time. Whatever you have to do to minimize the risk, but the punishment must not be cruel or unusual. ...OR like you're proposing, we could just stick with our our set inalienable rights until they become inconvenient... Determining what is "cruel and unusual" is, like obscenity, a subjective value. The BoR does not say what is cruel and unusual. It does not say that solitary confinement, a B&W teevee, family visits behind plexiglass and the ability to write letters, and being given access to paint and art supplies is cruel and unusual. It doesn't say human contact is an inalienable right. Your opinion that Terrible Tommy's living conditions define "cruel and unusual" is your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions. So, we're left to figure this out on our own as the times change. Both as punishments change and as criminals change. We'll see how the courts decide. I sure wouldn't care to take the odds on your side. Can't say that I'm surprised with your typical uber-liberal mumbo-jumbo of taking away means of self-defense, hoping everyone will play nice, setting up scenarios that don't work in the real world, tie one hand behind the backs of people who play by the rules, and then letting everyone go at it a free-for-all. And feeling great that the people who risk their lives have a nice benefits package, just so you can feel better pretending that unicorns fart rainbows. I'm only comforted by the fact that most of the brainless morons you'd vote for could see the arguments for keeping this guy away from other inmates and minimizing contact that he has with prison staff. My father always taught me to never have a battle of wits with an unarmed person, so this will likely be the last post to which I respond to you in this thread. Edited February 25, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Determining what is "cruel and unusual" is, like obscenity, a subjective value. The BoR does not say what is cruel and unusual. It does not say that solitary confinement, a B&W teevee, family visits behind plexiglass and the ability to write letters, and being given access to paint and art supplies is cruel and unusual. It doesn't say human contact is an inalienable right. Your opinion that Terrible Tommy's living conditions define "cruel and unusual" is your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions. So, we're left to figure this out on our own as the times change. Both as punishments change and as criminals change. We'll see how the courts decide. I sure wouldn't care to take the odds on your side. Can't say that I'm surprised with your typical uber-liberal mumbo-jumbo of taking away means of self-defense, hoping everyone will play nice, setting up scenarios that don't work in the real world, and then letting everyone go at a free-for-all. I'm only comforted by the fact that most of the brainless morons you'd vote for could see the arguments for keeping this guy away from other inmates and minimizing contact that he has with prison staff. My father always taught me to never have a battle of wits with an unarmed person, so this will likely be the last post to which I respond to you in this thread. Cute saying at the end there and I don't blame you if you want to quit. My assertion is that placing a prisoner in conditions that are guaranteed to cause him to go insane is cruel and unusual. Since when is defending and upholding the Constitution or Bill of Rights uber-liberal-mumbo-jumbo? Thankfully our Founding Fathers had the foresight to protect us from people like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Cute saying at the end there and I don't blame you if you want to quit. My assertion is that placing a prisoner in conditions that are guaranteed to cause him to go insane is cruel and unusual.Since when is defending and upholding the Constitution or Bill of Rights uber-liberal-mumbo-jumbo? Thankfully our Founding Fathers had the foresight to protect us from people like you. What would you do in Hannibal Lector's case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 What would you do in Hannibal Lector's case? I don't consider the death penalty to be cruel and unusual. In extreme cases that's appropriate. BTW, Hannibal the Cannibal isn't real. Jeffery Dahmer would be a better example. From what I've read of Dahmer, he probably belongs in a mental hospital. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 What would you do in Hannibal Lector's case? What would you do in Yosemite Sam's case? Since we've moved on to discussing the hypotheticals of fictitious characters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I don't consider the death penalty to be cruel and unusual. In extreme cases that's appropriate. BTW, Hannibal the Cannibal isn't real. Jeffery Dahmer would be a better example. From what I've read of Dahmer, he probably belongs in a mental hospital. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin You mean belonged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 You mean belonged. Oh, right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I don't consider the death penalty to be cruel and unusual. In extreme cases that's appropriate. BTW, Hannibal the Cannibal isn't real. Jeffery Dahmer would be a better example. From what I've read of Dahmer, he probably belongs in a mental hospital. Hey look who's giving dead people "rights" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Hey look who's giving dead people "rights" With my new-found power, I would personally like to retroactively grant Dahmer's victims the full extent of their rights against cruel and unusual punishment. Mr. Dahmer, even though you and they are all dead, I feel that the killing and eating of your victims constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and that your victims should be protected by the Bill of Rights. Stopped diding that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) Cute saying at the end there and I don't blame you if you want to quit. My assertion is that placing a prisoner in conditions that are guaranteed to cause him to go insane is cruel and unusual. Since when is defending and upholding the Constitution or Bill of Rights uber-liberal-mumbo-jumbo? Thankfully our Founding Fathers had the foresight to protect us from people like you. OK. I'll bite one last time. Insofar that the current actions of the warden have not been deemed unconstitutional, it's been going on for 27 years under oversight, and there's been other similar cases in the past. It is constitutional. Some people, you included, are saying it's not --- that doesn't mean that it's not. I'm not "quitting" this argument. It's reached its final point of my participation, that it's a matter of opinion, and I've stated mine. Your participation probably isn't complete b/c you won't be satisfied until you state your opinion using the same or different words another thousand times. Because you and your kind think that this cacophony of repetition makes your argument correct. Bye now. (Hmm. Maybe I should find a psychologist who says government taxation makes people go insane....) Edited February 25, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Insofar that the current actions of the warden have not been deemed unconstitutional, Have they been deemed anything? I didn't read too closely, but I didn't see anything that said a court decided either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts