Bronc24 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. Where's the guarantee he would go insane? And as for earlier statements, my assertion is that he is serving the sentence deemed proper for his crime. That you and others find it cruel and unusual punishment is fine. I, and apparently the legal system, think it fits the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA 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. Spot on. Jeffery Dahmer would be a better example. From what I've read of Dahmer, he probably belongs in a mental hospital. From what I've read, he belong in his grave. He's one of the better example of 'prison justice' that I can recall. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin Uh, he wasn't talking about taking away someone else's liberty as punishment for murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Have they been deemed anything? I didn't read too closely, but I didn't see anything that said a court decided either way. No. That meant that for a matter like this to be unconstitutional, it needs to be declared unconstitutional. It hasn't been for as long as the practice of prolonged solitary confinement has been in use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) Where's the guarantee he would go insane? And as for earlier statements, my assertion is that he is serving the sentence deemed proper for his crime. That you and others find it cruel and unusual punishment is fine. I, and apparently the legal system, think it fits the crime. The solitary confinement leading to insanity hypothesis is pretty well-established. The legal system has deemed this acceptable for now, but this thread is about whether or not it should be considered such. Your opinion that he is serving the sentence deemed proper for his crime is completely irrelevant. It's an American thing, you wouldn't understand. So I'll use repetition again and again: Is placing a prisoner in conditions that are guaranteed to cause him to go insane cruel and unusual? Uh, he wasn't talking about taking away someone else's liberty as punishment for murder. Thank you for your insight Mr. Franklin. Edited February 25, 2011 by Gene Frenkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Thank you for your insight Mr. Franklin. No problem. I've been getting tired of idiots misinterpreting my words in an attempt to support whatever unrelated argument they are unsuccessfully attempting to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 The solitary confinement leading to insanity hypothesis is pretty well-established. The legal system has deemed this acceptable for now, but this thread is about whether or not it should be considered such. Your opinion that he is serving the sentence deemed proper for his crime is completely irrelevant. It's an American thing, you wouldn't understand. So I'll use repetition again and again: Is placing a prisoner in conditions that are guaranteed to cause him to go insane cruel and unusual? Thank you for your insight Mr. Franklin. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 No. That's one vote for 'No' from our Canadian friend who's opinion doesn't actually matter in this debate. Anybody keeping track? Nowhere to go from there. Thanks for participating. No problem. I've been getting tired of idiots misinterpreting my words in an attempt to support whatever unrelated argument they are unsuccessfully attempting to make. Love the new avatar. A bit mismatched, but very nice nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Love the new avatar. A bit mismatched, but very nice nonetheless. I can't argue with that -- Ben will only be temporary as I can't do him justice. I'll look for something that matches me as well as yours does you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 I'll look for something that matches me as well as yours does you. I was under the impression Walter doesn't use his own product.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 (edited) I was under the impression Walter doesn't use his own product.... Walt's the man and he's smart enough not to get into that kind of stuff. Appearance-wise, we're not too dissimilar. I've got better eyesight, but he probably grows a better goatee. Of course I am a meth-head. Edited February 26, 2011 by Gene Frenkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 (edited) If he truly requires solitary confinement for that long, then he should have been executed decades ago. They have to make a decision: take him out of solitary confinement or execute him. Solitary confinement for that long should never been an option. Edited February 26, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 The eighth amendment specifically prohibits the federal government from imposing cruel and unusual punishment for federal crimes. The fourteenth amendment's due process clause enjoined the states from inflicting such punishments for state crimes. So, how "unusual" is this punishment? Is it less so than the death penalty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 26, 2011 Author Share Posted February 26, 2011 The eighth amendment specifically prohibits the federal government from imposing cruel and unusual punishment for federal crimes. The fourteenth amendment's due process clause enjoined the states from inflicting such punishments for state crimes. So, how "unusual" is this punishment? Is it less so than the death penalty? I don't believe at the time the amendment's where written long term imprisonment even existed. Hence no specific probation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 And that is the beauty of the USC! Cultures change and so do the meanings of vague words! :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 The eighth amendment specifically prohibits the federal government from imposing cruel and unusual punishment for federal crimes. The fourteenth amendment's due process clause enjoined the states from inflicting such punishments for state crimes. So, how "unusual" is this punishment? Is it less so than the death penalty? That's an interesting take. Of course, anything can become usual if we let it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 I don't believe at the time the amendment's where written long term imprisonment even existed. Hence no specific probation. True. I was struck by the comments of a docent at Colonial Williamsburg on a visit there two years ago. I asked about the prison and what kind of criminals they tried in the Governor's court at bar. He said they only imprisoned capital offenders - like horse thieves and murderers. A first time offender could plead for mercy and be branded. If tried and convicted, they were simply hung. Oh, and branding was very common in Colonial days. Burglars got a letter B branded on their right hand for the first offense, on the left for the second and on the forehead for the third, and probably a cropping of their ears for good measure. The country's gone downhill ever since. As S.I.C. might say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 True. I was struck by the comments of a docent at Colonial Williamsburg on a visit there two years ago. I asked about the prison and what kind of criminals they tried in the Governor's court at bar. He said they only imprisoned capital offenders - like horse thieves and murderers. A first time offender could plead for mercy and be branded. If tried and convicted, they were simply hung. Oh, and branding was very common in Colonial days. Burglars got a letter B branded on their right hand for the first offense, on the left for the second and on the forehead for the third, and probably a cropping of their ears for good measure. The country's gone downhill ever since. As S.I.C. might say. That's a nice illustration of the evolution of crime and punishment in our country. I'd imagine that in a couple of hundred years, 27 years of solitary confinement will seem as backward and archaic as branding does today. But the country's just gone downhill since they did away with the branding of foreheads. Are you even serious with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 That's a nice illustration of the evolution of crime and punishment in our country. I'd imagine that in a couple of hundred years, 27 years of solitary confinement will seem as backward and archaic as branding does today. But the country's just gone downhill since they did away with the branding of foreheads. Are you even serious with that? You forget you are talking to the pious right... One of it's core members... St. Nanker... Of course they haven't done anything even remotely close to what deserves getting a brand! PS... We are all mostly Sabres and Bills fans... That deserves some sort of brand! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 That's one vote for 'No' from our Canadian friend who's opinion doesn't actually matter in this debate. Anybody keeping track? Nowhere to go from there. Thanks for participating. Love the new avatar. A bit mismatched, but very nice nonetheless. Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. - Eleanor Roosevelt What she said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 That's a nice illustration of the evolution of crime and punishment in our country. I'd imagine that in a couple of hundred years, 27 years of solitary confinement will seem as backward and archaic as branding does today. But the country's just gone downhill since they did away with the branding of foreheads. Are you even serious with that? Perhaps the tongue-in-cheek wasn't so obvious. "The country's gone downhill ever since. As S.I.C. might say." i.e., As Stuck In Cincy might say. Just a gentle ribbing to another old timer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts