Comments on: Extra-judicial punishment?

By: OBQuiet

OBQuiet — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:20:54 +0000

Deoxy,

I too have often wondered why the courts decided that the authors of that phrase did not understand the difference between ‘and’ and ‘or’.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:37:43 +0000

“Or if you think the sex offender will re-offend, keep him in jail or make him undergo chemical castration.”

Yes, but that second option is prevented by the ridiculous redefining of “cruel and unusual” the courts have committed (basically to “stuff we don’t like” – if the punishment is the standard punishment prescribed by law for a certain crime, it is, by definition, not “unusual”, so it cannot possibly be “cruel AND unusual”).

The first option is what SHOULD be done, but the government won’t seem to do it (there’s support for it, or these “scarlet letter” laws wouldn’t be popular), so such scarlet letter approaches are, very unfortunately, the next best thing (which is not to say they are necessarily good).

By: Anonymous Attorney

Anonymous Attorney — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:13:45 +0000

The Scarlet Letter approach to punishment has never sat well with me, and I am not soft on crime. This reminds me of the laws requiring publicity for released sex offenders, which result in such great moments as drive-by shootings of the wrong house (New Jersey, I think). The claim that the public is protected by such measures is specious, while the harm done, even to an offender who has served his sentence, is enormous. If we really think the driver will drive drunk again, take away his license. Or if you think the sex offender will re-offend, keep him in jail or make him undergo chemical castration. But these public-humiliation measures do little more than satisfy suburban busybodies.