Can a prison sentence violate the eighth ammendment?

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
So far as I know, there has only been one case in which the courts have struck mandatory noncapitol punishment down: some v. Helm (a man was put in prison for life without parole for his seventh nonviolent felony). And we seem to be getting away from that - for instance, three strikes laws, which allow for people to be given the same sentence for much less, were upheld. And a Michigan law that puts people in life for holding 650 grams of drug in prison for life without parole was also upheld in recent years, as the court has had a rather extreme bent to the right.

Do you think that ANY mandatory prison sentence can violate the eighth ammendment?
 
Watermark said:
So far as I know, there has only been one case in which the courts have struck mandatory noncapitol punishment down: some v. Helm (a man was put in prison for life without parole for his seventh nonviolent felony). And we seem to be getting away from that - for instance, three strikes laws, which allow for people to be given the same sentence for much less, were upheld. And a Michigan law that puts people in life for holding 650 grams of drug in prison for life without parole was also upheld in recent years, as the court has had a rather extreme bent to the right.

Do you think that ANY mandatory prison sentence can violate the eighth ammendment?
Click to expand...
It can if it is both cruel and unusual. Three strikes laws are "unusual" but not cruel, upheld because all three offenses are a "serious criminal offense". Solem v. Helm was ruled in violation because all 7 of the man's crimes were non-violent and not crimes against a "person" yet he received a harsher penalty than the worst offenders. The penultimate sentence in SD at that time, as they had no death penalty.
 
Cruel ? Excessive ? Unusual ?...leaves it pretty wide open for how the customs and the culture of the citizens define these terms....
 
Watermark said:
Not all strikes need to be "against a person", Damo. The sentence is cruel.
Click to expand...
Read Solem v. Helms. Then read the Wiki page on three strikes laws. Please first educate yourself before you begin spooging EMO all over my board again.

There is a difference and a reason that one is not in violation and the other was. I described it "simply" above. I am not going to write a five-page dissertation only to have it dismissed down to "You are as bad as Idi Amin!" or some other some-such mixed in with foul language and repeated inanities.
 
Damocles said:
Read Solem v. Helms. Then read the Wiki page on three strikes laws. Please first educate yourself before you begin spooging EMO all over my board again.

There is a difference and a reason that one is not in violation and the other was. I described it "simply" above. I am not going to write a five-page dissertation only to have it dismissed down to "You are as bad as Idi Amin!" or some other some-such mixed in with foul language and repeated inanities.
Click to expand...

Yes, the difference is more Republicans appointing soulless conservatives to the supreme court.
 
Watermark said:
Yes, the difference is more Republicans appointing soulless conservatives to the supreme court.
Click to expand...
Right... That must be it. Even though the Rs have appointed some of the most liberal of those SCOTUS judges and the left owned the court when the decision was heard and made...

As I said, read. It will enlighten you.
 
He's one of the funniest on the board. Really.

Sometimes I even think it's intentional. I understand what he is saying. I haven't any strong opinion on this one yet myself, I'm waiting until a few more pipe in with some opinion.
 
Damocles said:
He's one of the funniest on the board. Really.

Sometimes I even think it's intentional. I understand what he is saying. I haven't any strong opinion on this one yet myself, I'm waiting until a few more pipe in with some opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm one of the funniest people period (MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!). If in seriousness I do something funny, I won't really mind later on though, and will probably laugh about it too.
 
My funny moments are the only redeeming quality in me that may one day get me laid.

One really hot girl even said I was the funniest guy she had ever met. She still wouldn't go out with me though.
 
Watermark said:
My funny moments are the only redeeming quality in me that may one day get me laid.

One really hot girl even said I was the funniest guy she had ever met. She still wouldn't go out with me though.
Click to expand...
It's because you exhale the desperation pheromone whenever you speak to a "hot" chick...
 
Damocles said:
It's because you exhale the desperation pheromone whenever you speak to a "hot" chick...
Click to expand...

Maybe. :dunno:

It's hard not to. They're hot.

Are you actually suggesting that I be held personally responsible for my actions!?/!?!?!!? They should love me for who I am! And if that means someone who acts desperately, then so be it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top