On Sat, 9 Feb 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Going back to the earlier case, I suspect it'll be overturned by the
> supremes. Lawyer types correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe
> the SC has consistently held that the ban on cruel and
> unusual punishment only bans certain punishments
> for any offenses (torture, maiming, branding), it doesn't ban
> excessive punishment for any particular crime, except where
> money is involved. Certainly that view is consistent with the
> text:
>
> Amendment VIII
> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
> nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Where do you get the issue of money being involved? Bail comes BEFORE any
conviction.
Sending somebody to jail for life for any crime where harm to a person
(not property) is not involved is cruel and unusual.
There is the issue that such 3 strike laws violate some of the basic ideas
of justice and fairness. When a person finishes their term as a
consequence for a crime they have paid their dues. It is even. Coming back
later and trying to hold that against them is simply unconstitutional.
You can't throw somebody in jail for being thrown in jail before and that
is ALL that three strike laws do. Other than increase the cost of the
legal system to the rest of the community.
--
____________________________________________________________________
James Choate - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ssz.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
