04-14-2006, 12:46 AM
Hi,
The second point, of course, is that the whole ". . . nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." is a load of nonsense. Punishment is cruel or it is not punishment. It is not in it's being cruel that it needs to be judged but in how much of that cruelty is necessary. When inmates have a better life than they had on the street, with more free time, better health services, even better meals, then is this actually punishment for them? Wouldn't making little rocks from big ones, or working on a chain gang be more appropriate? If they are paying a debt to society, shouldn't there actually be some payment? Even if it is only symbolic?
And as to 'unusual', too many people now seem to use the normal life of a non incarcerated member of society as the model for usual. Once again, if an inmate is living at the standard of his 'usual' out of prison life, and sometimes better, is there any punishment really going on? Seems to me that there isn't. If going to prison is little more than an inconvenience, if there's no mental or physical pain involved, then it becomes meaningless. And judging from what is happening in the USA, our attitude to 'cruel and unusual punishments' has destroyed the concept of correction in our correction facilities and has left only a means to briefly protect society from predators.
As for the whole death penalty debate, Jimmy is glue.
--Pete
Roland,Apr 13 2006, 03:40 PM Wrote:The Constitution . . . ban the use of "cruel and unusal punishment". [right][snapback]107113[/snapback][/right]Yes, and it is another example of the problem with the extreme terseness of parts of the US Constitution and Amendments. There are two issues that must be considered. One is the mores of the times that statement was written. At that time, hanging was not a drop that broke the neck, it was slow strangulation. And it was an accepted, as was ridicule at the pillory. The 'cruel' punishments were things like drawing, pressing, quartering, etc. Basically means to torture someone to death. The framers of the Constitution would not have batted an eyelash at something as humane as lethal injection, except possibly to observe that it was more mercy than the recipient deserved.
The second point, of course, is that the whole ". . . nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." is a load of nonsense. Punishment is cruel or it is not punishment. It is not in it's being cruel that it needs to be judged but in how much of that cruelty is necessary. When inmates have a better life than they had on the street, with more free time, better health services, even better meals, then is this actually punishment for them? Wouldn't making little rocks from big ones, or working on a chain gang be more appropriate? If they are paying a debt to society, shouldn't there actually be some payment? Even if it is only symbolic?
And as to 'unusual', too many people now seem to use the normal life of a non incarcerated member of society as the model for usual. Once again, if an inmate is living at the standard of his 'usual' out of prison life, and sometimes better, is there any punishment really going on? Seems to me that there isn't. If going to prison is little more than an inconvenience, if there's no mental or physical pain involved, then it becomes meaningless. And judging from what is happening in the USA, our attitude to 'cruel and unusual punishments' has destroyed the concept of correction in our correction facilities and has left only a means to briefly protect society from predators.
As for the whole death penalty debate, Jimmy is glue.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?