Criminal control and the 8th amendment

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

I hear a lot of liberal BS about gun control and reduction in crime and we all know the credibility of THAT arguement.

 

For the sake of debate I wanted to put forth a question...Is it reasonable, just, and a good idea to relax the restrictions of the 8th amendment as a deterent to criminal activity. By way of example, should a set number of lashes be permitted for certain crimes? How about waterboarding? What about exposure to temperatures cold enough to be very unpleasant but not cause injury? Is the threat or reality of physical pain or discomfort an adequate deterent?

 

A prisoner who floods his cell...should he be placed outside on a concrete exercise yard and hosed down naked in 40 degree temps and left there for a while?...that kind of thing. The obvious question then is, where do you draw the line, what safeguards do you put in place to prevent abuse, and how do you avoid setting a precedent for abuse of other constitutional protections?

 

What say you?

[TrickyNicky]

There's a reason America rocks and it ain't the pretty looking flag, its that piece of paper you mention in your handle. Every single article is there for a reason. You want to see our criminals tortured, go move to one of the sh;t hole countries that still does that kind of crap.

Nope, can't get behind that idea even a little.

[Joe357]

I agree with tricky nicky, I can't get behind torture as a deterrent to crime and or punishment. Almost sounds like some of the countries in the middle east with public executions and so on.

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

There's a reason America rocks and it ain't the pretty looking flag, its that piece of paper you mention in your handle. Every single article is there for a reason. You want to see our criminals tortured, go move to one of the sh;t hole countries that still does that kind of crap.

Nope, can't get behind that idea even a little.

Good to hear...

[DaveTN]

Pain or discomfort; are you kidding me? We can’t even get their TV taken away. So discussing the constitution isn’t even a factor in this issue.

[Guest Lowbuster]

I can't see these things being helpful to society, but I'm not against having inmates building roads, etc. I think that they should have to work, and can do several jobs that our tax dollars are used for anyway. Millions are spent keeping them in jail and I think they should earn some back.

[DaveTN]

I can't see these things being helpful to society, but I'm not against having inmates building roads, etc. I think that they should have to work, and can do several jobs that our tax dollars are used for anyway. Millions are spent keeping them in jail and I think they should earn some back.

The problem I have with that is that if you have them doing anything other than moving rocks from one place to another, you will be taking work from someone that is not a criminal.

[BryanP]

There's a reason the Founders wrote that the way they did. Inhumane / excessive punishment was permitted under English law.  It didn't serve a purpose then, it wouldn't serve a purpose now.

[gun sane]

I would say that what the regime is doing to income earners is cruel and unusual punishment.

[Smith]

Well, we should start with actual punishment. Since what we have is neither a deterrent or punishment for many criminals then the rest of the argument is mute.

[TripleDigitRide]

[quote name="Smith" post="1090879" timestamp="1389111717"]Well, we should start with actual punishment. Since what we have is neither a deterrent or punishment for many criminals then the rest of the argument is mute.[/quote] Amen!

[Jonnin]

the 8th is fundamentally flawed.  While all of them have some degree of language in the way (subjective interpretations) --- the use of the term "cruel and unusual" leaves everything totally open to debate.   I could easily write you an essay that "proves" that locking someone in a cage for life is "cruel".   I could do the same for the death penalty --- and with some creativity, probably *any* punishment that you can dream up, I can probably write a convincing piece of junk that states why your proposed method is "cruel" or "unusual".

 

Much like assault now means "waved a fist at from 100 yards away",  torture now means "causes discomfort".   Likewise, "cruel and unusual" simply means "punishment exceeding a tongue lashing".

 

as to what I believe,  It depends.   For non citizens caught red-handed in an act of mass murder, I support using any means that does not maim the individual to extract information that could save thousands of lives.   So if some nut plants a nuke and then gets caught,  and we need to know where the bomb is,  yea, I can support waterboarding, or truth drugs, or hypnosis,  or lack of sleep and similar methods.  The hard torture, though, has to be off limits --- the barbaric stuff like red hot nails into the knees or simply pulling their arm off slowly sorts of things are a no-go.  (However, I quite support the use of the latter in cases where an individual catches another individual in a horrible act such as raping their preteen daughter) and would let the person go free if I were on the jury.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Jonnin

[TMF]

I'm pretty sure that we should start by following the punishments already in place rather than plea every violent crime down in order to get sentences greatly reduced which won't be served in full anyway. There are folks walking the streets of my town who shot multiple people and served less than a year in jail. Of course they're gonna reoffend. Why wouldn't they?

[mikegideon]

I'm pretty sure that we should start by following the punishments already in place rather than plea every violent crime down in order to get sentences greatly reduced which won't be served in full anyway. There are folks walking the streets of my town who shot multiple people and served less than a year in jail. Of course they're gonna reoffend. Why wouldn't they?

 

The more they offend, the more chances they have to win the instant justice lotto :)

[machinist]

The problem I have with that is that if you have them doing anything other than moving rocks from one place to another, you will be taking work from someone that is not a criminal.

Like illegal Mexicans?

[Guest TankerHC]

Not no, hell no. It's all fine and good until one of your (our) friends or family or even us, end up getting waterboarded or lashed.

 

How about we stop building prisons that are businesses, turn punishment over to the State's, fund it, and stick with the Constitution and have mandatory truth in sentencing laws nationally. 

Edited January 8, 2014 by TankerHC

[Guest Lowbuster]

The problem I have with that is that if you have them doing anything other than moving rocks from one place to another, you will be taking work from someone that is not a criminal.

I thought of this too, but my wife and I were eating out a while back and watched 4 utility workers checking water meters. One would lift water cover, one would write down what ever the other said, then would switch to the other two. There is too much of this going on for our taxes to pay. We also saw TDOT workers putting up new signs and reflective strips on guard rails. There were five trucks there, about nine men, five of them standing watching four work. Add labor, gas, vehicle maintenance etc. There has to be a way to at least make these men earn our tax dollars.

[LagerHead]

Ben Franklin said it best: "They who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." 

[bersaguy]

Back years ago I worked in the penal system and a correctional officer. I remember when going to prison meant while you were there doing your time you worked at some type of job. You didn't lay in your air conditioned cell and watch cable TV. You got up and fed by 7AM and then you reported to your respective work assignment. Prisons for the most part were self sustaining requiring a lot less taxpayer dollars to sustain them. They grew about 90% of their own food on prison farms. They operated their own dairy farms to produce all their dairy needs. They operated coal fed power houses that produced their own power. They had textile mills in prisons that produced all the linens, blankets and towels needed to operate the prisons. They had a bakery that made all their own bread for their meals from grains grown on the farms and meal and flour was made by inmates operating mills to make it. Back in the late 70's the Supreme Court declared that inmates could no longer be made to work as just being in prison was their punishment. Now everything is delivered to the prisons from out side businesses and it is all paid for with taxpayer dollars. Even electricity is supplied from out side sources. The farms were all closed, Textile mills shut down and power houses sent dormant. Hell, they have made life so nice for the criminals that many of them look forward to going back because life is better inside than out side and if an inmate does work in prison now they are paid for their labor................jmho

Edited January 8, 2014 by bersaguy

[Guest Lowbuster]

Back years ago I worked in the penal system and a correctional officer. I remember when going to prison meant while you were there doing your time you worked at some type of job. You didn't lay in your air conditioned cell and watch cable TV. You got up and fed by 7AM and then you reported to your respective work assignment. Prisons for the most part were self sustaining requiring a lot less taxpayer dollars to sustain them. They grew about 90% of their own food on prison farms. They operated their own dairy farms to produce all their dairy needs. They operated coal fed power houses that produced their own power. They had textile mills in prisons that produced all the linens, blankets and towels needed to operate the prisons. They had a bakery that made all their own bread for their meals from grains grown on the farms and meal and flour was made by inmates operating mills to make it. Back in the late 70's the Supreme Court declared that inmates could no longer be made to work as just being in prison was their punishment. Now everything is delivered to the prisons from out side businesses and it is all paid for with taxpayer dollars. Even electricity is supplied from out side sources. The farms were all closed, Textile mills shut down and power houses sent dormant. Hell, they have made life so nice for the criminals that many of them look forward to going back because life is better inside than out side and if an inmate does work in prison now they are paid for their labor................jmho

I'm for this. I had thought they always laid around since chain gangs. They need to keep themselves up. Wonder if all prisons are self sufficient?

[Guest Bonedaddy]

Y'all are much nicer than I am, apparently. I'm an equal opportunity inflictor of grief. Ask and you shall recieve. Like I said...Stay off my lawn means much more than what it seems to say. Say what you will but pain is how all things in nature are learned and it works very well. Always has. So pick your amount of liberalism and suffer if ya want 'cause I will, too but like I also said, y'all seem to be much nicer than me. Ref. the sig line.

[TrickyNicky]

Y'all are much nicer than I am, apparently. I'm an equal opportunity inflictor of grief. Ask and you shall recieve. Like I said...Stay off my lawn means much more than what it seems to say. Say what you will but pain is how all things in nature are learned and it works very well. Always has. So pick your amount of liberalism and suffer if ya want 'cause I will, too but like I also said, y'all seem to be much nicer than me. Ref. the sig line.

Fair enough I suppose, but how does backing the 8th have anything whatsoever with liberalism? In my mind anyway I'd see it as the exact opposite?

[Curiousgb]

Pain or discomfort; are you kidding me? We can’t even get their TV taken away. So discussing the constitution isn’t even a factor in this issue.

How many of you work in a penal institution?

[Spiffy]

I hear a lot of liberal BS about gun control and reduction in crime and we all know the credibility of THAT arguement.

 

For the sake of debate I wanted to put forth a question...Is it reasonable, just, and a good idea to relax the restrictions of the 8th amendment as a deterent to criminal activity. By way of example, should a set number of lashes be permitted for certain crimes? How about waterboarding? What about exposure to temperatures cold enough to be very unpleasant but not cause injury? Is the threat or reality of physical pain or discomfort an adequate deterent?

 

A prisoner who floods his cell...should he be placed outside on a concrete exercise yard and hosed down naked in 40 degree temps and left there for a while?...that kind of thing. The obvious question then is, where do you draw the line, what safeguards do you put in place to prevent abuse, and how do you avoid setting a precedent for abuse of other constitutional protections?

 

What say you?

 

 

As long as it's an evil "heterosexual Christian white male" not a word would be said.....but soon as you even THINK about whipping a colored person it would be on like Donkey Kong.