7 ms·

How is admittedly imprisoning someone for "coercive" reasons not cruel? /I'll table the unusual bit.

by noobiemcfoob 7y ago

mieseratte 7y ago
How is it cruel?
- haasted 7y ago
  Keeping someone confined? It’s not NOT cruel.
  - refurb 7y ago
    So based on your argument, imprisonment in general is unconstitutional?
    - munk-a 7y ago
      I think there is a very rationale case to be made that imprisonment for the sake of punishment is unproductive and immoral - but I can't see any way that it falls under unconstitutional.
  - blackflame7000 7y ago
    By the standard of the 8th amendment, it is not cruel, or else we would not be able to imprison anyone.
    - malka 7y ago
      the 8th amendment is about "cruel and unusual punishment". As long as the punishment is usual, it can be cruel.
      - munk-a 7y ago
        From what I've read "cruel and unusual punishment" is less of an AND statement about punishments being cruel and non-standard and more of a double descriptor of the cruelty with the unusual portion more focused on a sort of terrible inventiveness and also, IMO to stand as a sort of fallback for questionable punishments, if the punishment is innovative it would need to be proven to not be cruel before it's application - and the US has (IMO) failed to adhere to this standard in the past with some methods of administering the death penalty - specifically the electric chair. I personally don't like death penalties (due to their misuse as a political tool and the general high error rate of judgement) but I believe proper lethal injection fits perfectly within the bounds of not being cruel nor unusual. So, if someone said that lethal injection was more humane if administered in direct sunlight while the injectee was hanging upside down due to blood movement some-such... assuming they were telling the truth about the efficacy then it'd likely pass the 8th amendment.
        jessaustin 7y ago
        Stated more logically, it would be "no cruel punishments and no unusual punishments".
- codezero 7y ago
  Edit: the following is in response to an assumption the parent meant "cruel" as in "cruel" not "cruel" as in "Cruel and Unusual Punishment." [0] Depriving them of the ability to work and be a productive citizen. Depriving them of their existing assets (fines), and as stated by Manning and others, that grand juries have tended in the past to victimize those they call as witnesses. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment
  - jimktrains2 7y ago
    Not making commentary on Manning specifically, but what you just described isn't "cruel" in terms of "cruel and unusual punishment". Now, the means of imprisonment or acts taken to you while imprisoned may be cruel, but simply imprisoning someone for breaking the law (contempt of court, in this case) does not rise to the level of "cruel". Unfair? Unnecessary? Unfitting of the wrong? Those are all things I don't know enough to really say or discuss in an educated manner.
    - codezero 7y ago
      I was responding to the question "How is it cruel" - I didn't mean to opine on the legal phrasing/interpretation of cruel and unusual punishment.
      - mieseratte 7y ago
        > How is admittedly imprisoning someone for "coercive" reasons not cruel? /I'll table the unusual bit. Why would I assume you meant the colloquial "cruel" and not the legal "cruel" here? Perhaps you should edit to clarify if your intent was the former as opposed to the latter.
        codezero 7y ago
        I don't know, why would I assume you mean the legal terminology. I don't assume that it's that when the phrase isn't used in full - I assumed the omission was intentional. Something can be cruel without being unreasonable, and something can be unreasonable without being cruel. Perhaps you should also edit to clarify your intent.
mikeash 7y ago
Courts need to be able to compel behavior and threatening punishment for not complying is an important way to do that. The only part I can see as being cruel is the actual imprisonment. One can probably make a good argument that American prisons are cruel in general, but I don’t think that will get too far in court.
- gdhbcc 7y ago
  I dispute your assumption that the courts need to be able to compel behaviour. At best they need to be able to compel inaction, but they should never be able to compel action
  - austinheap 7y ago
    You also dispute vaccines based on your comment history which would indicate an unwillingness to engage in rational conversation or to accept scientific facts.
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    How do you envision that playing out? If the court has no power to compel testimony they have very little power in general.
    - magduf 7y ago
      How do you figure? They have the power to allow prosecutors to present physical evidence, and to allow testimony from cooperative witnesses. Then they have the power to have a trial based on this evidence, and then find a suspect guilty or not guilty. If they find the suspect guilty, they have the power to impose a sentence. What more do they need? Compelling testimony from an uncooperative witness isn't necessary for a case, nor is it even very helpful: such a witness can't be considered reliable or trustworthy.
      - EpicEng 7y ago
        And what if you can't obtain that evidence because the person in possession won't hand it over? What if your only 'witness' is a corporate entity? What if your witness just doesn't like cops? Probably a hundred more scenarios I can't come up with at the moment. In your world guilty parties walk because the state has no power to make anyone do anything. Everything is based upon the prosecutor being Sherlock Holmes and always finding exactly what they need. The real world doesn't work that way.
ncallaway 7y ago
I think the "cruel and unusual" clause requires both to provide any protection. It's self-evident that most of the actions of the criminal justice system are cruel. I think anyone would agree. However, that phrase in our constitution explicitly leaves the door open for our criminal justice system to perform cruel behaviors, as long as they are in line with the standards of the day (or, if you're an originalist, of the standards of 1791). So, my response would be that you've tabled the only portion of the debate that is relevant. I'll freely concede that the criminal justice system is cruel, but I wouldn't then argue that the system falls afoul of the 8th amendment.
- tomschlick 7y ago
  > It's self-evident that most of the actions of the criminal justice system are cruel. Imprisoning people who have committed crimes is not cruel. It's literally the job of every justice system to do that. If there was some sort of abuse then sure, but there hasn't been to my knowledge.
  - ncallaway 7y ago
    > It's literally the job of every justice system to do that. This makes it usual or common, but it doesn't make it not cruel. > Imprisoning people who have committed crimes is not cruel. Imprisoning someone is absolutely cruel. It may be common and accepted (and it certainly is in our current criminal justice system). It may even be just and proper, but it is still cruel.
  - noobiemcfoob 7y ago
    > Imprisoning people who have committed crimes That's not what is being called into question. It's imprisoning someone for the express purpose of coercing testimony that smells here.
- noobiemcfoob 7y ago
  I can accept your argument, even if it leaves me grumpier than when I first asked the question. States convention, anyone?
dragonwriter 7y ago
> How is admittedly imprisoning someone for "coercive" reasons not cruel? All imprisonment is an attempt to constrain undesired and incentivize desired behavior by imposing unacceptable costs for non-compliance (in fact, so is all law); it is inherently coercive.
- noobiemcfoob 7y ago
  Sure. Expand my question then to imprisoning someone to coerce testimony.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    It is no more cruel than punitive imprisonment in similar conditions and I think it is undeniable that it is not within any meaning of cruel (even, given current values, one relative to changing cultural values rather than fixed in scope at the time written) that could plausibly be argued to be intended as the meaning of the 8th Amendment.

How is admittedly imprisoning someone for "coercive" reasons not cruel? /I'll table the unusual bit.

mieseratte 7y ago

How is it cruel?

haasted 7y ago
Keeping someone confined? It’s not NOT cruel.
- refurb 7y ago
  So based on your argument, imprisonment in general is unconstitutional?
  - munk-a 7y ago
    I think there is a very rationale case to be made that imprisonment for the sake of punishment is unproductive and immoral - but I can't see any way that it falls under unconstitutional.
- blackflame7000 7y ago
  By the standard of the 8th amendment, it is not cruel, or else we would not be able to imprison anyone.
  - malka 7y ago
    the 8th amendment is about "cruel and unusual punishment". As long as the punishment is usual, it can be cruel.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      From what I've read "cruel and unusual punishment" is less of an AND statement about punishments being cruel and non-standard and more of a double descriptor of the cruelty with the unusual portion more focused on a sort of terrible inventiveness and also, IMO to stand as a sort of fallback for questionable punishments, if the punishment is innovative it would need to be proven to not be cruel before it's application - and the US has (IMO) failed to adhere to this standard in the past with some methods of administering the death penalty - specifically the electric chair. I personally don't like death penalties (due to their misuse as a political tool and the general high error rate of judgement) but I believe proper lethal injection fits perfectly within the bounds of not being cruel nor unusual. So, if someone said that lethal injection was more humane if administered in direct sunlight while the injectee was hanging upside down due to blood movement some-such... assuming they were telling the truth about the efficacy then it'd likely pass the 8th amendment.
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        Stated more logically, it would be "no cruel punishments and no unusual punishments".
codezero 7y ago
Edit: the following is in response to an assumption the parent meant "cruel" as in "cruel" not "cruel" as in "Cruel and Unusual Punishment." [0] Depriving them of the ability to work and be a productive citizen. Depriving them of their existing assets (fines), and as stated by Manning and others, that grand juries have tended in the past to victimize those they call as witnesses. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment
- jimktrains2 7y ago
  Not making commentary on Manning specifically, but what you just described isn't "cruel" in terms of "cruel and unusual punishment". Now, the means of imprisonment or acts taken to you while imprisoned may be cruel, but simply imprisoning someone for breaking the law (contempt of court, in this case) does not rise to the level of "cruel". Unfair? Unnecessary? Unfitting of the wrong? Those are all things I don't know enough to really say or discuss in an educated manner.
  - codezero 7y ago
    I was responding to the question "How is it cruel" - I didn't mean to opine on the legal phrasing/interpretation of cruel and unusual punishment.
    - mieseratte 7y ago
      > How is admittedly imprisoning someone for "coercive" reasons not cruel? /I'll table the unusual bit. Why would I assume you meant the colloquial "cruel" and not the legal "cruel" here? Perhaps you should edit to clarify if your intent was the former as opposed to the latter.
      - codezero 7y ago
        I don't know, why would I assume you mean the legal terminology. I don't assume that it's that when the phrase isn't used in full - I assumed the omission was intentional. Something can be cruel without being unreasonable, and something can be unreasonable without being cruel. Perhaps you should also edit to clarify your intent.

mikeash 7y ago

Courts need to be able to compel behavior and threatening punishment for not complying is an important way to do that. The only part I can see as being cruel is the actual imprisonment. One can probably make a good argument that American prisons are cruel in general, but I don’t think that will get too far in court.

gdhbcc 7y ago
I dispute your assumption that the courts need to be able to compel behaviour. At best they need to be able to compel inaction, but they should never be able to compel action
- austinheap 7y ago
  You also dispute vaccines based on your comment history which would indicate an unwillingness to engage in rational conversation or to accept scientific facts.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  How do you envision that playing out? If the court has no power to compel testimony they have very little power in general.
  - magduf 7y ago
    How do you figure? They have the power to allow prosecutors to present physical evidence, and to allow testimony from cooperative witnesses. Then they have the power to have a trial based on this evidence, and then find a suspect guilty or not guilty. If they find the suspect guilty, they have the power to impose a sentence. What more do they need? Compelling testimony from an uncooperative witness isn't necessary for a case, nor is it even very helpful: such a witness can't be considered reliable or trustworthy.
    - EpicEng 7y ago
      And what if you can't obtain that evidence because the person in possession won't hand it over? What if your only 'witness' is a corporate entity? What if your witness just doesn't like cops? Probably a hundred more scenarios I can't come up with at the moment. In your world guilty parties walk because the state has no power to make anyone do anything. Everything is based upon the prosecutor being Sherlock Holmes and always finding exactly what they need. The real world doesn't work that way.

ncallaway 7y ago

I think the "cruel and unusual" clause requires both to provide any protection. It's self-evident that most of the actions of the criminal justice system are cruel. I think anyone would agree. However, that phrase in our constitution explicitly leaves the door open for our criminal justice system to perform cruel behaviors, as long as they are in line with the standards of the day (or, if you're an originalist, of the standards of 1791). So, my response would be that you've tabled the only portion of the debate that is relevant. I'll freely concede that the criminal justice system is cruel, but I wouldn't then argue that the system falls afoul of the 8th amendment.

tomschlick 7y ago
> It's self-evident that most of the actions of the criminal justice system are cruel. Imprisoning people who have committed crimes is not cruel. It's literally the job of every justice system to do that. If there was some sort of abuse then sure, but there hasn't been to my knowledge.
- ncallaway 7y ago
  > It's literally the job of every justice system to do that. This makes it usual or common, but it doesn't make it not cruel. > Imprisoning people who have committed crimes is not cruel. Imprisoning someone is absolutely cruel. It may be common and accepted (and it certainly is in our current criminal justice system). It may even be just and proper, but it is still cruel.
- noobiemcfoob 7y ago
  > Imprisoning people who have committed crimes That's not what is being called into question. It's imprisoning someone for the express purpose of coercing testimony that smells here.
noobiemcfoob 7y ago
I can accept your argument, even if it leaves me grumpier than when I first asked the question. States convention, anyone?

dragonwriter 7y ago

> How is admittedly imprisoning someone for "coercive" reasons not cruel? All imprisonment is an attempt to constrain undesired and incentivize desired behavior by imposing unacceptable costs for non-compliance (in fact, so is all law); it is inherently coercive.

noobiemcfoob 7y ago
Sure. Expand my question then to imprisoning someone to coerce testimony.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  It is no more cruel than punitive imprisonment in similar conditions and I think it is undeniable that it is not within any meaning of cruel (even, given current values, one relative to changing cultural values rather than fixed in scope at the time written) that could plausibly be argued to be intended as the meaning of the 8th Amendment.