5 ms·

There is actually a constitutional right to be free of "cruel and unusual punishment" in the U.S. Judges just have to start ruling that $250 is cruel when someo

There is actually a constitutional right to be free of "cruel and unusual punishment" in the U.S. Judges just have to start ruling that $250 is cruel when someone is in poverty. There is also a right to a "fair and speedy trial". Judges just have to start ruling that sitting in county jail for six months waiting for trial is unconstitutional.

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
It has to be cruel and unusual. Fines may or may not be cruel but they're definitely not unusual.
- praptak 8y ago
  Fines in general aren't. Fines so big that the individual cannot realistically pay them are up for discussion, IMHO. I admit there's a Catch 22 logic here though. Once a punishment starts being handed so often that it becomes a problem for society, it becomes "usual".
pixl97 8y ago
Most of the time it is not the judge that delays the trial, but the lawyers. The first hearing is generally in a few days.
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Ok, so for the latter do you then just release people? You can't fix a judicial system by mere declaration.
- pc86 8y ago
  If you accept for the sake of argument that a six month jail sentence waiting for trial is a violation of your Constitutional right to a speedy trial (it's not[0], particularly if you're waiving a jury trial and are being tried by a judge), the person whose rights were violated would need to sue and appeal on those grounds. It's very unlikely that on day 121 the judge dismisses the case, but they're certainly free to do that if they feel it was a violation. [0] https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/right-to-a-speedy-trial-in-criminal-cases.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/right-to-a-sp...
  - humanrebar 8y ago
    I'm not sure it would be unlikely given the narratives of the article. At least it shouldn't be. Judges exist, partly, to prevent Kafkaesque application of rules from causing injustice.
- beat 8y ago
  Well, look at the alternative. Under the current system, besides the destructiveness of incarcerating often innocent people for months for trivial charges, you wind up with people pleading guilty to crimes they never committed, just to avoid being locked up for months. A basic principle of common law and the American justice system is that it's better to free the guilty than imprison the innocent. So just on American principles, letting poor people go on the assumption that they'll return for trial is better than keeping them in jail for lack of bail.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    This is a misrepresentation of the legal system in the US. There's an immense amount of information on this topic available from the Bureaeu of Justice Statistics. This [1] paper in particular is highly relevant. Bail tends to be set in relation to the criminal record of an individual, the seriousness of an offense, how much of a flight risk they are, and whether or not they're likely to be a danger to themselves or others if released. It's not the 'norm'. So for instance of all individuals (arrested for any offense) 77% of those with no priors end up being released without financial condition. For those with misdemeanor priors it's 63% and 46% for those with felony priors. And there are excellent test cases that can experimentally show whether these release conditions are reasonable. For instance there are occasional emergency releases caused by things such as prison overcrowding. And this is where people that would not normally be released without condition, are. Of these individuals 52% end up being charged with pretrial misconduct! For the general population of people intentionally released that figure ranges from 27%-36% depending on the release type. And when somebody is forced to pay bail, they have numerous options. Generally they only have to pay 10% of the cost of the bail. In some cases that can be paid directly to the court who will then refund that 10% once they return for and complete their trial. If that's not an option the way bail bondsmen work is that an individual pays the bail bondsmen 10%. The bail bondsmen then go to the court and pay 100% of the bail on behalf of the individual. They get that 100% back once the individual returns and completes their trial, so the 10% is their profit margin. This is also where modern day 'bounting hunting' tends to come into play -- the bail bondsmen have a very strong incentive to ensure that their clients do not flee. --- So the point of this all is that in the vast majority of cases we do simply let people go on the assumption they'll return to trial. For those that we don't let go, there tends to be a pretty good reason. That article from the BJS I linked has a great table at the bottom that offers some regression figures for release/return rates of various groups helping to determine how justified various decisions are. In most cases they are, in some cases they are not. It's pretty reasonable to conclude that it's a system that does well, but could be made to do better. But it's quite different from what you would portray it as. [1] - https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/prfdsc.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/prfdsc.pdf
- edflsafoiewq 8y ago
  Sounds good. It would provide an incentive to prioritize cases that really matter.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Sure. That's already basically how it works with rules for gathering evidence, for example. If you improperly gather evidence, it becomes inadmissible, and if it was critical to making your case then the accused will go free. Once criminals start going free because of easily fixed procedural problems, those problems will be fixed quickly.
pc86 8y ago
SCOTUS has already ruled that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment - more specifically, that since it is not unusual, it is not a Constitutional violation despite where you feel it falls on the cruelty spectrum. A common pleas or even circuit court judge can't simply say "lol whatever I'm going to ignore that." Only SCOTUS can reverse its position on the Constitutionality of the death penalty.
- johnchristopher 8y ago
  But SCOTUS can only reverse what is brought to it, right ? So a circuit court judge has to ignore that so that SCOTUS can have the occasion to reverse its position ? Bear with me, I am not from the US.
  - psudo 8y ago
    That's not quite how it works. The lower court would be expected to uphold SCOTUS's rulings, though there is some wiggle room. The main way things get before SCOTUS is through the parties appealing the lower court decisions and then SCOTUS deciding to hear it.
- iamthirsty 8y ago
  A lower level court judge can make a ruling, like finding a $250 fine for a poor person cruel, that stands, because it's not a SCOTUS issue. The death penatly sure, and the legality of it has already been decided in the U.S., and is usually for serious crimes. But for low-level offenses, the likes of which are rarely — or basically never — brought before SCOTUS or higher level courts, a judge can rule in any way he sees fair, as that's his job.
- dmm 8y ago
  SCOTUS has ruled that the death penalty _is_ cruel and unusual punishment in many circumstances. For example, in 1980 they ruled that it could only be applied only if it involves a precise and aggravating factor[0]. Louisiana had a law that made the rape of a child punishable by death and SCOTUS overturned that law in 2008[1]. SCOTUS has consistent narrowed the crimes punishable by death in the past 50 years using the Eighth Amendment as a justification. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#Supreme_Court_narrows_capital_offenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Unit... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Louisiana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Louisiana

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago

It has to be cruel and unusual. Fines may or may not be cruel but they're definitely not unusual.

praptak 8y ago
Fines in general aren't. Fines so big that the individual cannot realistically pay them are up for discussion, IMHO. I admit there's a Catch 22 logic here though. Once a punishment starts being handed so often that it becomes a problem for society, it becomes "usual".

pixl97 8y ago

Most of the time it is not the judge that delays the trial, but the lawyers. The first hearing is generally in a few days.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

Ok, so for the latter do you then just release people? You can't fix a judicial system by mere declaration.

pc86 8y ago
If you accept for the sake of argument that a six month jail sentence waiting for trial is a violation of your Constitutional right to a speedy trial (it's not[0], particularly if you're waiving a jury trial and are being tried by a judge), the person whose rights were violated would need to sue and appeal on those grounds. It's very unlikely that on day 121 the judge dismisses the case, but they're certainly free to do that if they feel it was a violation. [0] https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/right-to-a-speedy-trial-in-criminal-cases.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/right-to-a-sp...
- humanrebar 8y ago
  I'm not sure it would be unlikely given the narratives of the article. At least it shouldn't be. Judges exist, partly, to prevent Kafkaesque application of rules from causing injustice.
beat 8y ago
Well, look at the alternative. Under the current system, besides the destructiveness of incarcerating often innocent people for months for trivial charges, you wind up with people pleading guilty to crimes they never committed, just to avoid being locked up for months. A basic principle of common law and the American justice system is that it's better to free the guilty than imprison the innocent. So just on American principles, letting poor people go on the assumption that they'll return for trial is better than keeping them in jail for lack of bail.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  This is a misrepresentation of the legal system in the US. There's an immense amount of information on this topic available from the Bureaeu of Justice Statistics. This [1] paper in particular is highly relevant. Bail tends to be set in relation to the criminal record of an individual, the seriousness of an offense, how much of a flight risk they are, and whether or not they're likely to be a danger to themselves or others if released. It's not the 'norm'. So for instance of all individuals (arrested for any offense) 77% of those with no priors end up being released without financial condition. For those with misdemeanor priors it's 63% and 46% for those with felony priors. And there are excellent test cases that can experimentally show whether these release conditions are reasonable. For instance there are occasional emergency releases caused by things such as prison overcrowding. And this is where people that would not normally be released without condition, are. Of these individuals 52% end up being charged with pretrial misconduct! For the general population of people intentionally released that figure ranges from 27%-36% depending on the release type. And when somebody is forced to pay bail, they have numerous options. Generally they only have to pay 10% of the cost of the bail. In some cases that can be paid directly to the court who will then refund that 10% once they return for and complete their trial. If that's not an option the way bail bondsmen work is that an individual pays the bail bondsmen 10%. The bail bondsmen then go to the court and pay 100% of the bail on behalf of the individual. They get that 100% back once the individual returns and completes their trial, so the 10% is their profit margin. This is also where modern day 'bounting hunting' tends to come into play -- the bail bondsmen have a very strong incentive to ensure that their clients do not flee. --- So the point of this all is that in the vast majority of cases we do simply let people go on the assumption they'll return to trial. For those that we don't let go, there tends to be a pretty good reason. That article from the BJS I linked has a great table at the bottom that offers some regression figures for release/return rates of various groups helping to determine how justified various decisions are. In most cases they are, in some cases they are not. It's pretty reasonable to conclude that it's a system that does well, but could be made to do better. But it's quite different from what you would portray it as. [1] - https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/prfdsc.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/prfdsc.pdf
edflsafoiewq 8y ago
Sounds good. It would provide an incentive to prioritize cases that really matter.
mikeash 8y ago
Sure. That's already basically how it works with rules for gathering evidence, for example. If you improperly gather evidence, it becomes inadmissible, and if it was critical to making your case then the accused will go free. Once criminals start going free because of easily fixed procedural problems, those problems will be fixed quickly.

pc86 8y ago

SCOTUS has already ruled that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment - more specifically, that since it is not unusual, it is not a Constitutional violation despite where you feel it falls on the cruelty spectrum. A common pleas or even circuit court judge can't simply say "lol whatever I'm going to ignore that." Only SCOTUS can reverse its position on the Constitutionality of the death penalty.

johnchristopher 8y ago
But SCOTUS can only reverse what is brought to it, right ? So a circuit court judge has to ignore that so that SCOTUS can have the occasion to reverse its position ? Bear with me, I am not from the US.
- psudo 8y ago
  That's not quite how it works. The lower court would be expected to uphold SCOTUS's rulings, though there is some wiggle room. The main way things get before SCOTUS is through the parties appealing the lower court decisions and then SCOTUS deciding to hear it.
iamthirsty 8y ago
A lower level court judge can make a ruling, like finding a $250 fine for a poor person cruel, that stands, because it's not a SCOTUS issue. The death penatly sure, and the legality of it has already been decided in the U.S., and is usually for serious crimes. But for low-level offenses, the likes of which are rarely — or basically never — brought before SCOTUS or higher level courts, a judge can rule in any way he sees fair, as that's his job.
dmm 8y ago
SCOTUS has ruled that the death penalty _is_ cruel and unusual punishment in many circumstances. For example, in 1980 they ruled that it could only be applied only if it involves a precise and aggravating factor[0]. Louisiana had a law that made the rape of a child punishable by death and SCOTUS overturned that law in 2008[1]. SCOTUS has consistent narrowed the crimes punishable by death in the past 50 years using the Eighth Amendment as a justification. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#Supreme_Court_narrows_capital_offenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Unit... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Louisiana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Louisiana