Why is cruel and unusual punishment outlawed for criminals in America? Most of the crimes that they commit could be considered cruel and unusual for their victims.I just think criminals should have to always take more of their own medicine than what they gave out, but that's impossible in America. What are your opinions?
In America, you are innocent until proven guilty. So unless there has been a criminal trial and a verdict was made that concludes you ARE a criminal, you cannot be treated as such. I am not disagreeing that US has committed crimes internationally and has done a poor job of convicting or the folks who are responsible for these activities or the very least, put them on trial. Just as an example, there were tons of people in wall street that were responsible for the market crash and yet very few got jailed for it. The ugliness of politics extends to both local and international policies.
You mean like places such as India (I think) where if you commit a certain crime the punishment is 100 lashings?
Cruelty is meant to indulge or stimulate the individual executioners' or adjuticators' personal fetishes for physical violence, not to equitably or proportionally administer justice in the eyes of a community. "Unusualness/unusuality" serves no purpose other than adding variety and therefore amusement for the gallery.
Cruel and unusual? So are you suggesting a rapist have a cactus dipped in battery acid and shoved up is ass for ten minutes per victim? That is justice to you. Although a twisted example, this is what you are asking for. WTH is wrong with you? This fits the bill as they are literally taking "more of their own medicine." This is how you want our nation's system of justice to viewed from afar? No. Just. No. Cruel and unusual is just sick and wrong. I hate that people refer to our jails/prison systems as "correctional" institutions. Total BS. We're not trying to correct anything. This is a ****ing lock and throw away the key society. We rarely attempt to rehabilitate our criminals and youth that make poor decisions. We're not even giving our youth, our future, a chance. On the flip side, some people that commit crimes get a slap on the hand for this, while others fry. It's just ridiculous.
Because its the state that determines who's guilty. If cruel and unusual punishment were allowed, the state would use it as a tool to suppress people who they deem to be threats to the status quo. We're talking about people who use loopholes in tax law to put people who're talking crap about the system in federal prison.
As noted the 8th Amendment bans it and to follow up on Pouhe's post the justice system isn't about vengeance or spectacle but about public safety.
We're a society built upon the rule of law. How we enforce and follow the law from top down reflects upon how we treat each other on the whole. Meaning once you see your leaders bending rules and even blatantly breaking them, there's no real justification for us as individuals to follow them either. This question is similar. If the government is also perverse and reflects the darker parts of our collective humanity, then the electorate would be tacitly sanctioning that evil despite banning it on the individual level. What this means is that we acknowledge that we're a cruel and barbaric society, and that justifies the heavy handedness of our rulers and leaders to "rein us in". Things we consider "fair" or appropriate on the individual level isn't always scalable the higher scope you get. You can't get away with things you did as a kid when you become a parent. Blatantly stealing supplies as a low wage employee might not carry the same weight as you stealing the same things as a manager. So the approach on how we do things at a collective level carries far more unknown and different consequences compared to what you or I handle things on a face-to-face level.
How about just unusual punishment? Like watching Matt Schaub film 18 hrs a day. On second thought that is pretty cruel
I think the main issue is the definition of CRUEL AND UNUSUAL Some feel it is cruel to deny prisoners Tobacco and TV Others would not. The question is. . . . what do you consider 'cruel' and 'unusual'? Rocket River
Cruel, any type of bodily harm, intentional mental trauma, deprivations. Unusual I think really comes down to the amount of cruelty applied.
Sounds reasonable but Like I said. . . . some have used these terms to make sure all prisoners have access to tobacco, tv, weight rooms, etc Sometimes I think our prisons are too nice Would it be too cruel to lock them into their cells 23 hours a day and feed them the bare minimum? [beans and rice and water] Not suggesting it. . not really but at what point does simple imprisonment become 'cruel' Rocket River
While I think our prison system is a total failure, in a rehabilitation sense, I think denying prisoners more ensure even more failure. Might be cruel, but if you are in for life, who cares about you. I think while some "luxuries" they have seem civil or whatever, but are necessary for some level of sanity. Here's a radical idea, make all 5 year plus(by today's standards) compose a state university passing dissertation for freedom.
I say screw 'good time' In order to get time off for good behavior. . .. you have to pass classes If you come in with no diploma . .. you get one or it is day for day If you have one . . .. . ever class toward a degree is a month or something. You will not come out uneducated . ... that said we need to make it so the unoffending public can get some education too . . . .. otherwise people will goto to jail for free educations [not really but someone will say this ] Rocket River
That would create excessive cost of additional salaried educators, the degree would be worthless to the bulk of corporate employers who don't even hire for-profit grads or anyone with less than perfect credit or Facebook comments, and would have an insanely low success rate given the socioeconomic correlations between criminal offenders and academic underachievers.
