The Eight Amendment

[ConHog]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Talk about ambiguous writing.......

What's excessive bail? $1M effectively means some people are staying in prison until trial; while others could just write a check and move on.

As for cruel and unusual punishment. If the gov't started waterboarding every person convicted of DUI then that suddenly wouldn't be unusual punishment, would it?

[Little-Acorn]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Talk about ambiguous writing.......

What's excessive bail? $1M effectively means some people are staying in prison until trial; while others could just write a check and move on.

As for cruel and unusual punishment. If the gov't started waterboarding every person convicted of DUI then that suddenly wouldn't be unusual punishment, would it?

It would be neither unusual nor cruel, since the subject knows it won't actually injure him, and will end soon. Whipping or torture, might be a different situation.

Back to the subject:
The spirit of the 8th is obvious and clear, just as its detail is completely lacking. Obviously some things must be evaluated case by case, and details will vary as much as the cases do. Bail of $100 might be as effective on a homeless guy, as a bail of $1 million on a wealthy guy, for the same suspected crime. The Framers obviously had this in mind, and had no intention of requiring the same bail for the same crime, for the reason you pointed out. Ditto (to a lesser extent) for fines. Even our present law often specifies a maximum fine, regardless of wealth or income level; but does not specify an exact fine for all.

The purpose of a judge (and even the reason he is called that) is to evaluate each case and come up with a DIFFERENT bail or fine, even for similar crimes, depending on circumstances, including but not limited to wealth.

The Framers knew that. It seems that only some of our current pundits, obsessed with abolute equality regardless of actual circumstances, remain ignorant of this necessity.

[revelarts]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Talk about ambiguous writing.......

....

As for cruel and unusual punishment. If the gov't started waterboarding every person convicted of DUI then that suddenly wouldn't be unusual punishment, would it?


...It would be neither unusual nor cruel, since the subject knows it won't actually injure him, and will end soon. Whipping or torture, might be a different situation.
...



Spoken like true RED COATS, or KGB
George Washington and Jefferson would be ashamed of you boys.
Are you guys using the John Yoo standard if it doesn't cause death , it's not cruel or unusual or torture?
If you don't call it torture its not torture. there ya go.

Tasers to the balls doesn't injure either.
If it doesn't show it's not an injury.

Don't fingernails grow back, heck they've got that stuff now so you could grow back large fingers and toe sections completely.
No harm no foul if it can grow back.

ridiculous.

waterboarding has been illegal in the U.S. and people have gone to jail for it in Texas and elsewhere. In other wars WE'VE tried people who've done it to our troops.
stop covering Bush's ASS.
You know D@MN well that if if was done your wife or kids you be crying bloody murder.

[ConHog]

Spoken like true RED COATS, or KGB
George Washington and Jefferson would be ashamed of you boys.
Are you guys using the John Yoo standard if it doesn't cause death , it's not cruel or unusual or torture?
If you don't call it torture its not torture. there ya go.

Tasers to the balls doesn't injure either.
If it doesn't show it's not an injury.

Don't fingernails grow back, heck they've got that stuff now so you could grow back large fingers and toe sections completely.
No harm no foul if it can grow back.

ridiculous.

waterboarding has been illegal in the U.S. and people have gone to jail for it in Texas and elsewhere. In other wars WE'VE tried people who've done it to our troops.
stop covering Bush's ASS.




You know D@MN well that if if was done your wife or kids you be crying bloody murder.

hey Rev, kidnapping is illegal to, but we don't define jail time as kidnapping do we?


PS - If my wife or kids does something that earns them the appropriate punishment , tough shit for them.

[Little-Acorn]

Spoken like true RED COATS, or KGB
George Washington and Jefferson would be ashamed of you boys.

(rest of hysterical rant deleted)

That's the reaction I expected from someone who either didn't read the rest of the thread, or who forgot it as soon as he read it, particularly ConHog's positing of everyone using waterboarding, coupled with ignorance of the fact that both Washington and Jefferson supported flogging for some crimes - a far worse punishment than waterboarding.

Back to the subject:
The Framers were against punishments more cruel than were normally used at that time... which means that the punishments usually used, were not considered cruel. This included the aforementioned flogging, and a few other delicacies including the death penalty. That's also where their ban on "unusual punishment" came from - it was their way of saying that the punishments routinely doled out by reasonable courts, were OK. The Death Penalty for murder might be OK, where the same Death Penalty for simple robbery, was not. At that point it was considered cruel, though executing a premeditated-murderer was not considered cruel.

[ConHog]

That's the reaction I expected from someone who either didn't read the rest of the thread, or who forgot it as soon as he read it, particularly ConHog's positing of everyone using waterboarding, coupled with ignorance of the fact that both Washington and Jefferson supported flogging for some crimes - a far worse punishment than waterboarding.

Back to the subject:
The Framers were against punishments more cruel than were normally used at that time... which means that the punishments usually used, were not considered cruel. This included the aforementioned flogging, and a few other delicacies including the death penalty. That's also where their ban on "unusual punishment" came from - it was their way of saying that the punishments routinely doled out by reasonable courts, were OK. The Death Penalty for murder might be OK, where the same Death Penalty for simple robbery, was not. At that point it was considered cruel, though executing a premeditated-murderer was not considered cruel.

If one actually reads history and understands it, they would understand exactly what you are talking about here.

Hell, I think I can even make an argument that sitting on death row for multiple years waiting to be put to death is cruel, but it isn't unusual obviously.

Of course there is a line, and mutilating people crosses said line; but some can't seem to separate the two concepts.

[revelarts]

That's the reaction I expected from someone who either didn't read the rest of the thread, or who forgot it as soon as he read it, particularly ConHog's positing of everyone using waterboarding, coupled with ignorance of the fact that both Washington and Jefferson supported flogging for some crimes - a far worse punishment than waterboarding.

Back to the subject:
The Framers were against punishments more cruel than were normally used at that time... which means that the punishments usually used, were not considered cruel. This included the aforementioned flogging, and a few other delicacies including the death penalty. That's also where their ban on "unusual punishment" came from - it was their way of saying that the punishments routinely doled out by reasonable courts, were OK. The Death Penalty for murder might be OK, where the same Death Penalty for simple robbery, was not. At that point it was considered cruel, though executing a premeditated-murderer was not considered cruel.
everyone using Tasers to balls then is ok? as long as it "usual".
Frankly that makes no sense Acorn and is kinda evil really.


the framers understood torture and punishment pretty clearly Acorn.
the Inquisition wasn't that far off.
The Rack was torture so was
"Strappado ... a form of torture that began with the Medieval Inquisition. In one version, the hands of the accused were tied behind his back and the rope looped over a brace in the ceiling of the chamber or attached to a pulley. Then the subject was raised until he was hanging (http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/death-dying/death-by-hanging.htm) from his arms."
Water boarding also used by the Spanish Inquisition. The Inquisition called it what it is: tortura del aqua. In English: Water Torture. I think Jefferson could read Spanish, Folks here need to stop playing ridiculous word games.

I think they understood the concept not to far from our own.

"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.”-

George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

[revelarts]

hey Rev, kidnapping is illegal to, but we don't define jail time as kidnapping do we?
...

If people don't have Due Process yes, we do call it kidnpping.

[ConHog]

If people don't have Due Process yes, we do call it kidnpping.

Exactly right. If the Sheriff comes to your home and just throws your ass in jail. that's kidnapping. If however he has a warrant saying "arrest Rev" its not kidnapping. So thank you for admitting that if the sherrif has a piece of paper saying "waterboard Rev" that would not be considered the same as if it Joe Blow off the street grabbed you up and water boarded you.

[revelarts]

Exactly right. If the Sheriff comes to your home and just throws your ass in jail. that's kidnapping. If however he has a warrant saying "arrest Rev" its not kidnapping. So thank you for admitting that if the sherrif has a piece of paper saying "waterboard Rev" that would not be considered the same as if it Joe Blow off the street grabbed you up and water boarded you.

Waterborading is torture. it is NEVER legal Con that's the point. What are you smoking today CON?
Using a the Rack is NEVER legal it's cruel and unusual. Pulling Finger nails Is NEVER LEGAL.

It's Cruel , it's been Known as a Cruel torture for centuries!!! it's NOT less cruel today becuase Bush, Cheney the CIA the Suadi King, Chiles Penochette, Moa, Staltin Or Hirohito says so.
It's Unusual, It ....is ....NOT ....USUAL. No one uses it regularly except those known to be Despots and Tyrannies. That anyone would even SAY "IF IT WAS USUAL" is just dark crazy talk.

Same Crap different Day.

http://waterboarding.org/files/waterboarding/images/1556%20Praxis%20Rerum%20Criminalium.preview.jpg
http://mistercaps.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/watertorturedm_468x404.jpg

SAme

[ConHog]

Rev, are you one of those guys who screams if criminals aren't given fresh fruit and tv time as well?

NO ONE here is even advocating torturing criminals anyway. All we're saying is that the COTUS does NOT prohibit ALL forms of "torture."

[ConHog]

Hey Rev,

I found this


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbY4nOEz1V0


Right in the Huevos. :laugh2:

[revelarts]

Rev, are you one of those guys who screams if criminals aren't given fresh fruit and tv time as well?

NO ONE here is even advocating torturing criminals anyway. All we're saying is that the COTUS does NOT prohibit ALL forms of "torture."

Cruel and unusual in any normal meaning of the terms would stop Anyone From every getting to Torture, especially at the dark line you and Acorn draw before you even acknowledge the concept.

The inquisition had water torture, the English Star Chamber tortured and is the reason English bill of rights 1st created the law "no cruel and unusual punishments." the the framers lifted the text and knew its history. No torture.
the idea of original intent, which Acorn says he shares when convenient, would make this one a NO BRAINER.

Waterboarding is ---has always been--- torture therefore its unconstitutional by the 8th amendment.
period.



http://waterboarding.org/files/waterboarding/images/1968.01.21%20vietnam.jpg

"On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier near Da Nang. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." This picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier."


In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.

In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834



Supreme court Wilkerson v Utah 1878
"...the extent of the constitutional provision which provides that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted; but it is safe to affirm that punishments of torture, such as those mentioned by the commentator referred to (historical references England), and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by that amendment to the Constitution..."

[revelarts]

Sorry folks but i'm having Dejavu on Jim "whats wrong with people" thread. He Bemoaned a better recent past.


A few years prior to Bush most conservatives would never defend water boarding as "not torture".
It's sad the twisting we want to do to make ourselves look better than, or be justified in Actions rightly condemned historically.
Same crap new day.