Unusual punishments for crimes

[sackett]

jsiv is on the right wavelength here. The U.S. Constitution outlaws cruel and unusual punishments. Unfortunately, it doesn't outlaw cruel or unusual punishments, so from time to time we read about judges who hand out sentences like this. (Some of the guys who wind up judges! Jesus! I hope somebody brings out a book entitled "Judicial Grotesques" or some such thing. With frequent updates.)

But I don't like to try cases in the newspapers. Maybe this one is being poorly reported.

 

[Tony]

The only thing that really matters though, is what the rest of the world and the laws say.

Neither of which is static. Laws and public opinion can be changed.

Imprisonment following a fair trial is not considered a violation of a person's rights in any country or international convention I can think of.

Prison is a violation of human rights, otherwise, it wouldn't be a punishment.

Laughing stocks on the other hand, are a bit of a gray area.

Laughing stock? Is that that thingy you hear about in times of old where the person's head and hands were physically restrained in a wooden apparatus that forced their body into a bend position? I don't see how that's comparable to a chicken suit. Indeed, since the person is physically restrained, I'd say that a laughing stock is more like prison than wearing a chicken suit.

 

[Tony]

jsiv is on the right wavelength here. The U.S. Constitution outlaws cruel and unusual punishments. Unfortunately, it doesn't outlaw cruel or unusual punishments, so from time to time we read about judges who hand out sentences like this. (Some of the guys who wind up judges! Jesus! I hope somebody brings out a book entitled "Judicial Grotesques" or some such thing. With frequent updates.)

But I don't like to try cases in the newspapers. Maybe this one is being poorly reported.

My contention is that prison is cruel. It's only "usual" because everyone does it. Would the chicken suit be ok if everyone else did it?

 

[jsiv]

More? More?

Sorry dude, but you're wack.

You're right, maybe I am. But I really do consider accepting the appropriate sentence for the crime and serving your jail sentence to be more dignified.

Which do you think would be more tramatic to the average person? Prison or chicken suit?

I will concede that you're right, the average person probably would find jail more traumatic, or at least to have a bigger impact on their life. Otherwise they wouldn't opt out.

But then, if the punishment isn't bad enough to be degrading (which clearly is the purpose of it), doesn't that just make a mockery of the legal system?

Neither of which is static. Laws and public opinion can be changed.

True.

Prison is a violation of human rights, otherwise, it wouldn't be a punishment.

It isn't, because the freedom in question is not absolute.

Laughing stock? Is that that thingy you hear about in times of old where the person's head and hands were physically restrained in a wooden apparatus that forced their body into a bend position? I don't see how that's comparable to a chicken suit. Indeed, since the person is physically restrained, I'd say that a laughing stock is more like prison that wearing a chicken suit.

They're intended to serve the same purpose. Public mockery and degradation. The guy in the chicken suit is essentially restrained as well, even if his limbs are not in the stock.

 

[PixyMisa]

Effectively they are.

Not at all.

Given the choice, which would you choose? Why? And in what way is that choice forced?

 

[jsiv]

Do what, now?

How is being given a choice of penalties where none existed before "forcing" a choice?

Because I don't consider it a real choice. A month in jail means lost income and other consequences that effectively forces the person to suffer the embarassement of public ridicule instead.

They do? So if you humiliate me on this thread by eviscerating my arguments through the overwhelming power of your logic, your encyclopedic command of the facts, and your Shakespearean prose, can I sue you for depriving me of my dignity? I have a right to my dignity. How dare you deprive me of it?

You could try, but I guess the difference is that you'd be voluntarily exposing yourself to the humiliation, while I still argue that the chicken thing is not truly voluntary.

Not at all.

Given the choice, which would you choose? Why? And in what way is that choice forced?

I would choose the chicken suit, because a few month in a cell would really mess up your life, both financially and socially. I'd consider that alternative to be so bad that I'd just suit up and get it over with.

(The original article makes no mention of a regular sentence, but I suspect there was the option and I'll concede that it probably would be within the limits of the literal laws of the US.)


But okay, let's change the whole premise. What if you are sentenced to, uhm, chicken suiting with no alternative of taking the normal punishment instead. What would people say then? Would it be unacceptable then?

Or, for those that consider the chicken suit to really have very little impact on the criminal's life, would you consider that a mockery of the law? He gets away with that while others have to spend time in jail?

Yes, there is the judge's discretion, but should that be reserved for more sensible forms of alternative punishment?

 

[shemp]

Why is this punishment? I wear my chicken suit when I "take care" of the goats, and we have a lot of fun!

 

[JJM 777]

Article five of the Declaration of Human Rights states that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Oh, this unfortunate and self-contradicting political pamphlet.

First declare that every person should have freedom of consicence.

Then deny that by saying that democratic majority should rule each country (what happened to the freedom of conscience of the minority)?

Then deny that by saying that the UN Human Rights document (dictated by a very small political elite) should be binding for all human beings in all countries -- without checking if all its contents are the will of the democratic majority or not. (What happened to democracy and freedom of conscience?)

For example, any ban on death sentence (which is not mentioned in UN Human Rights though) would be undemocratic and a violation of human rights, since the majority of global population politically supports a death sentence for murder and such.

Generally, it is always morally right for a state to treat a criminal exactly in the same way as he has treated others. No matter how bad he has treated others. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, shame for shame, and so on.

http://www.moralbalance.com/English/ch_01.html

 

[PixyMisa]

I would choose the chicken suit, because a few month in a cell would really mess up your life, both financially and socially. I'd consider that alternative to be so bad that I'd just suit up and get it over with.

Yep.

(The original article makes no mention of a regular sentence, but I suspect there was the option and I'll concede that it probably would be within the limits of the literal laws of the US.)

Probably, yeah.

But okay, let's change the whole premise. What if you are sentenced to, uhm, chicken suiting with no alternative of taking the normal punishment instead. What would people say then? Would it be unacceptable then?

I would think that would be very weird and possibly counter-productive. But if it were me being punished, I wouldn't have a problem with that. At all.

Oh, and you do have the right to appeal, both the verdict and the sentence.

Or, for those that consider the chicken suit to really have very little impact on the criminal's life, would you consider that a mockery of the law? He gets away with that while others have to spend time in jail?

If it's a misdemeanour, I wouldn't be worried. For felony crimes, particularly violent ones, yeah, that would be a problem. But in that case the judge would likely be overturned on appeal from the prosecution.

Yes, there is the judge's discretion, but should that be reserved for more sensible forms of alternative punishment?

Hmm. No. No, probably not.

 

[quixotecoyote]

The strip searches, hygiene treatment, funky jumpsuits, and utter submission to authority of prison would strike me as being fairly humiliating.

 

[Nitpick]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/bizarre/5003526.html

It's not the first time that Cicconetti has used barnyard animals in his sentences.

He ordered a man who called a policeman a "pig" to stand next to a live pig in a pen and hold a sign that read, "This Is Not a Police Officer."

"This Is Not a Police Officer"...



Hm, couldn't a scene like this be considered to be somewhat offending towards police officers?
Now, if a policeman would have felt offended, whom could he have sued - the judge or the "convict" ?

 

[Whoracle]

jsiv is on the right wavelength here. The U.S. Constitution outlaws cruel and unusual punishments. Unfortunately, it doesn't outlaw cruel or unusual punishments, so from time to time we read about judges who hand out sentences like this. (Some of the guys who wind up judges! Jesus! I hope somebody brings out a book entitled "Judicial Grotesques" or some such thing. With frequent updates.)

But I don't like to try cases in the newspapers. Maybe this one is being poorly reported.

It doesn't have to be both cruel and unusual. Just cruel will suffice. Nothing unusual about beating a prisoner senseless every day, been done for thousands of years and still goes on in many countries. It is however cruel, so it's banned by the constitution. Not that I feel this rises to occasion of a human rights violation, but it's certainly unusual and if they objected I think they should win.

 

[PixyMisa]

I definitely think that anyone sentenced this way should be able to appeal and be handed a jail term instead. (Well, assuming that the crime in question has such a penalty.)

I also think it's kind of weird, but I'm not convinced that it's actually inappropriate.

 

[BPSCG]

jsiv is on the right wavelength here. The U.S. Constitution outlaws cruel and unusual punishments. Unfortunately, it doesn't outlaw cruel or unusual punishments...

This is something I'd like one of the lawyers around here to weigh in on (Brown? LossLeader?)

US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Eighth Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The phrase "cruel and unusual punishments" has puzzled me for a long time.

My reading of that is that, interpreted literally, a single punishment would have to be both cruel and unusual to be prohibited. We see here - and in many other places - that unusual punishments can be inflicted and pass constitutional muster, as long as they are not cruel. So why is the converse not true? If a punishment is cruel, would it be constitutional if it was routinely applied everywhere, and therefore not unusual?

If all fifty states provided for the death penalty for breaking the speed limit and the method of execution was progressive amputation (one finger, then the next, then the next...), and the penalty was uniformly and routinely applied, that would certainly be cruel, but it would not be unusual. Would it therefore be constitutional? If not, why should the (unusual) chicken suit punishment be constitutional, while the (cruel) execution by progressive amputation would not be?

Was the intent of the authors of the Constitution that the amendment be read as, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel punishment and unusual punishments inflicted"? Can anyone show a citation for that interpretation?

 

[BPSCG]

Because I don't consider it a real choice. A month in jail means lost income and other consequences that effectively forces the person to suffer the embarassement of public ridicule instead.

No it doesn't. Because if the chicken suit option weren't available, he'd have to take the month in jail, period. He might find the chicken suit option to be no better than the month in jail, or even worse, but he isn't being deprived of any rights by being offered the option. The worst you could say about the chicken suit option is that it's superfluous, that it's not really an option. But it doesn't make his situation any worse than if it weren't available at all.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Since you are not American, let me assure you, the vast majority of convicted felons face standard punishments.

Is solicitation a felony? I don't see why it should even be a crime. I think the real issue is why we as a society think that people should be ashamed of their sexuality.

Courts do (or should) not have the right to force people to humiliate themselves in public. People do have a right to dignity. Even criminals.

No, they don't. If you take away someone else's dignity, why do you deserve your own?

Article five of the Declaration of Human Rights states that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

I don't understand why people are opposed to cruel treatment of criminals. Isn't the whole point of punishment to treat prisoners badly?

Right, but the only reason he won't have any interesting in arguing it is because the alternative is far worse.

How can you on the one hand argue that the alternative is far worse, but on the other hand say that you insist on the alternative to preserve his rights? If you're concerned about criminals' rights, shouldn't you be fighting for the punishment that is better?

It is a modern day laughing stock.

You should be aware that that term is usually used metaphorically, so seeing you use it literally threw me a bit.

They're intended to serve the same purpose. Public mockery and degradation. The guy in the chicken suit is essentially restrained as well, even if his limbs are not in the stock.

Not in nearly the same magnitude. Stocks cause cramps and circulatary problems.

 

[Whoracle]

This is something I'd like one of the lawyers around here to weigh in on (Brown? LossLeader?)

US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Eighth Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The phrase "cruel and unusual punishments" has puzzled me for a long time.

My reading of that is that, interpreted literally, a single punishment would have to be both cruel and unusual to be prohibited. We see here - and in many other places - that unusual punishments can be inflicted and pass constitutional muster, as long as they are not cruel. So why is the converse not true? If a punishment is cruel, would it be constitutional if it was routinely applied everywhere, and therefore not unusual?

If all fifty states provided for the death penalty for breaking the speed limit and the method of execution was progressive amputation (one finger, then the next, then the next...), and the penalty was uniformly and routinely applied, that would certainly be cruel, but it would not be unusual. Would it therefore be constitutional? If not, why should the (unusual) chicken suit punishment be constitutional, while the (cruel) execution by progressive amputation would not be?

Was the intent of the authors of the Constitution that the amendment be read as, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel punishment and unusual punishments inflicted"? Can anyone show a citation for that interpretation?

I'm not a lawyer but cruel punishment that isn't unusual is not legal. A judge couldn't sentence someone to 100 lashes. Countries still do that, and it was popular in the past. Nothing unusual about it, but it is considered cruel and we don't do it anymore. We've decided that any sort of physical pain is cruel even though there isn't anything unusual about doing it today or in the past.

 

[UserGoogol]

I don't understand why people are opposed to cruel treatment of criminals. Isn't the whole point of punishment to treat prisoners badly?

I suppose treating prisoners badly is sort of the definition of punishment, but I don't see why it should be the point. (Although of course in practice sometimes it is.) It seems rather absurd to me that being a convicted criminal puts a person into some sort of moral topsy-turvy land where it is good for bad things to happen to them and bad for good things to happen to them. Criminals are people too, and thus it is good when they are happy and bad when they are unhappy, all other things being equal.

Of course, all other things are not equal, and there is some plausible evidence that punishment can serve as a deterrent or to rehabilitate, and thus that the net effect is good. But just causing harm to a criminal simply because they're a criminal seems just mean.

 

[BPSCG]

I'm not a lawyer but cruel punishment that isn't unusual is not legal.

Why? That's what I was asking in my previous post.

Cruel punishment that isn't unusual is not legal.
But unusual punishment that isn't cruel is legal.

Why? What does the Constitution mean by "cruel and unusual punishments"?

 

[CFLarsen]

The legacy of Hester Prynne lives on...

What is the difference between the Chicken Man, and this? Or this? Or this?

Why should one be considered civilized and not the others? Or perhaps it doesn't matter if a society considers itself civilized (as long as it isn't about oneself)?

Next: Parading on donkeys. Or, public hanging, drawing and quartering. Panem et Circenses.