4 ms·

The way US prosecutors operate - piling on large numbers of felony charges with decades in maximum sentencing and offering a shorter sentence in exchange for a

The way US prosecutors operate - piling on large numbers of felony charges with decades in maximum sentencing and offering a shorter sentence in exchange for a guilty plea - is a clear violation of the 8th Amendment. It's functionally equivalent to using the threat of torture to extract a confession. http://quandyfactory.com/blog/103 http://quandyfactory.com/blog/103

thoughtcriminal 14y ago
Yes, mental torture, and it can be administered by prosecutors for years before the victim succumbs to forced confession or death. Guantanamo Bay isn't the only proof the US government tortures it's citizens.
- saraid216 14y ago
  Psychological games to produce confessions are actually considered legal. FYI.
  - thoughtcriminal 14y ago
    Games? This isn't a game. This is someone's life we're talking about, and about the freedom of citizens not to be tortured and punished before even being found guilty. Even if it is "legal", it's not right. You wouldn't want that done to your son or mother. No, because it's cruel, unfair and can produce devastating results. Are you sure you're even on the right website? Gamespot is here: http://gamespot.com http://gamespot.com
    - saraid216 14y ago
      Yes. The entire discipline of game theory is designed around making light of serious decision making. </sarcasm>
monochromatic 14y ago
a clear violation of the 8th Amendment Is that your legal opinion? You know, there are centuries of jurisprudence exploring the meaning of various constitutional provisions...
- efsavage 14y ago
  You don't need to be a lawyer to have a valid "legal" opinion. And yes, there are centuries of jurisprudence, but it is always changing, evolving, and sometimes even reversing to meet the needs of the present.
  - monochromatic 14y ago
    You don't need to be a lawyer to have a valid "legal" opinion. That's true in the same way that a broken clock is right twice a day is true.
- acdha 14y ago
  Case history can't be dismissed without consideration but … ever think about how long it took before we reached the modern consensus that non-property owners or women could vote, that slavery should not be allowed, the government should not be allowed to prevent inconvenient news from being published, etc? In each case, you could point to a mountain of argument which was commonly accepted, cited by high courts, and yet we now agree that those arguments were wrong. Politicians, judges and lawyers aren't saints – they follow the beliefs of their times: we currently have policies (torture, detention, eavesdropping, assassination) which are currently politically expedient for many people to accept despite very clearly being unconstitutional.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    > ever think about how long it took before we reached the modern consensus that non-property owners or women could vote, that slavery should not be allowed, the government should not be allowed to prevent inconvenient news from being published, etc? Have you? Because it didn't happen by magic. They didn't blithely upend things; they argued from first principles and when the founding, axiomatic document listing those principles lacked the needed bases, they changed it through processes that were listed in that document. If it's such a "clear violation", then you can dig through the case law that explores the many edge cases we've already encountered and cite them as part of a robust, not-easily-dismissed argument that this is a violation. Baldly asserting that it's a "clear violation" says nothing except that you consider your own, personal authority to be a sufficient claim. Ortiz, and prosecutors like her, may be doing some really shitty things, but they do have this: when they walk into a courtroom, they actually deliver an argument that seems to leave a solid trail between the Constitution and the conviction of guilt. (And it's the defense's job to deliver an argument that the trail is not sufficiently solid.) Yes. Overturn it. And do it in such a way that it stays overturned.

thoughtcriminal 14y ago

Yes, mental torture, and it can be administered by prosecutors for years before the victim succumbs to forced confession or death. Guantanamo Bay isn't the only proof the US government tortures it's citizens.

saraid216 14y ago
Psychological games to produce confessions are actually considered legal. FYI.
- thoughtcriminal 14y ago
  Games? This isn't a game. This is someone's life we're talking about, and about the freedom of citizens not to be tortured and punished before even being found guilty. Even if it is "legal", it's not right. You wouldn't want that done to your son or mother. No, because it's cruel, unfair and can produce devastating results. Are you sure you're even on the right website? Gamespot is here: http://gamespot.com http://gamespot.com
  - saraid216 14y ago
    Yes. The entire discipline of game theory is designed around making light of serious decision making. </sarcasm>

monochromatic 14y ago

a clear violation of the 8th Amendment Is that your legal opinion? You know, there are centuries of jurisprudence exploring the meaning of various constitutional provisions...

efsavage 14y ago
You don't need to be a lawyer to have a valid "legal" opinion. And yes, there are centuries of jurisprudence, but it is always changing, evolving, and sometimes even reversing to meet the needs of the present.
- monochromatic 14y ago
  You don't need to be a lawyer to have a valid "legal" opinion. That's true in the same way that a broken clock is right twice a day is true.
acdha 14y ago
Case history can't be dismissed without consideration but … ever think about how long it took before we reached the modern consensus that non-property owners or women could vote, that slavery should not be allowed, the government should not be allowed to prevent inconvenient news from being published, etc? In each case, you could point to a mountain of argument which was commonly accepted, cited by high courts, and yet we now agree that those arguments were wrong. Politicians, judges and lawyers aren't saints – they follow the beliefs of their times: we currently have policies (torture, detention, eavesdropping, assassination) which are currently politically expedient for many people to accept despite very clearly being unconstitutional.
- saraid216 14y ago
  > ever think about how long it took before we reached the modern consensus that non-property owners or women could vote, that slavery should not be allowed, the government should not be allowed to prevent inconvenient news from being published, etc? Have you? Because it didn't happen by magic. They didn't blithely upend things; they argued from first principles and when the founding, axiomatic document listing those principles lacked the needed bases, they changed it through processes that were listed in that document. If it's such a "clear violation", then you can dig through the case law that explores the many edge cases we've already encountered and cite them as part of a robust, not-easily-dismissed argument that this is a violation. Baldly asserting that it's a "clear violation" says nothing except that you consider your own, personal authority to be a sufficient claim. Ortiz, and prosecutors like her, may be doing some really shitty things, but they do have this: when they walk into a courtroom, they actually deliver an argument that seems to leave a solid trail between the Constitution and the conviction of guilt. (And it's the defense's job to deliver an argument that the trail is not sufficiently solid.) Yes. Overturn it. And do it in such a way that it stays overturned.