Cruel and unusual punishment?

SphereOfFeetMan · Post by **SphereOfFeetMan** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:52 pm

Recently a friend told me about the legal situation of one of his co-workers. I was surprised by the severity of the punishment, and that got me wondering where the line is drawn legally, and where it should be drawn.

So this man is working full time (40 hrs a week), and he gets thousands of dollars in fines for his crimes. He doesn't make very much money; he can barely scrape by paying his rent with his paycheck. He will go to jail because he cannot afford it. So he asks the judge if he perform community service instead. The judge agrees, and orders the man to perform 320 hours of community service within 45 days.

320 divided by 45 equals 7.1 hours per day every day. Added on top of his 40 hour work week, that is over 15 hours a day 5 days a week. He also has to attend an 8 hour class once a week for rehabilitation. So he has to work 15 hours a day 6 days a week, and on his "off" day he only has to work 7 hours.

I am unsure of the travel time involved, but it seems likely that driving to and from his job, and to and from the community service would take at least an hour. Possibly two. He also has to buy groceries, and perform the other errands of living. So 6 out of 7 days a week he will probably get 7, or only 6 hours of sleep if he does nothing else except: work, drive, and perform errands necessary for living. He has to do this schedule for 45 days.

I realize some people choose to pull 80 hour work weeks or more. Yet, is this cruel punishment when you are forced to do this or go to prison? Should this be defined as cruel punishment? If not, after how many hours should the line be drawn?

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:40 pm

If he puts in 13 hours on his "off" day, then he will have a much easier go of it.

Instead of needing 7.1 hours every day, he will only need 6.1 hours on those other days. Could make a noticeable difference.

If he could take a week off of work somehow, that would make a remarkable difference as well.

It's not an easy sentence, but it probably still beats the piss out of paying thousands of dollars or going to jail. Cruel and unusual probably does not apply here.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:41 pm

American punishments are not designed to be doable or for rehabilitation.

They are designed to be an ever cascading series of things-can-get-worse.

-Crissa

Sir Neil · Post by **Sir Neil** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:57 am

SphereOfFeetMan wrote:Yet, is this cruel punishment when you are forced to do this or go to prison?

The judge is allowing the crook to do this to avoid prison. It's called mercy.

Gelare · Post by **Gelare** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:23 am

That might be a disproportionate punishment. After all, the United States has plenty of laws on its books that mandate long prison sentences for what many would consider minor offences (like many drug offences). On the other hand, maybe this guy did something really heinous, and he shouldn't even be allowed to work off his prison sentence with community service. I don't know - and because I don't know, I can't possibly say whether this could be cruel and unusual punishment.

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 6:04 am

WHat exactly has this person done and what was he convicted of?

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:09 pm

ckafrica wrote:WHat exactly has this person done and what was he convicted of?

I think that's what really needs to be known. SphereOfFeetMan didn't really mention anything about it.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:22 pm

Judging__Eagle wrote:
ckafrica wrote:WHat exactly has this person done and what was he convicted of?
I think that's what really needs to be known. SphereOfFeetMan didn't really mention anything about it.

Bullshit. If performing a certain amount of community service is enough to 'atone' for the crime, then a reasonable amount of time to perform that service should be given regardless of what the crime was.

SphereOfFeetMan · Post by **SphereOfFeetMan** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 9:29 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Bullshit. If performing a certain amount of community service is enough to 'atone' for the crime, then a reasonable amount of time to perform that service should be given regardless of what the crime was.

This is my thought as well. However, I am usure as to where the line should be drawn. And I certainly can't rationalize over 15 hours a day 6/days a week.

ckafrica wrote:WHat exactly has this person done and what was he convicted of?

I didn't think it should be relevant. If it is, here is the situation: Years ago when he was younger he went on a burglary spree stealing things out of cars. I don't know whether he was a minor or not at this time. He was on this crime spree with two other people, one 13 years old, and one 15. He had a car. He was caught because someone took down his license plate. Either because he was the only one with evidence against him, or because the other two were minors, he was charged with the crimes of all three.

Then recently he was arrested for pot. Either this was just for being in the company of people doing it, or paraphernalia, or doing it himself I am unsure of.

So, given that, is his community service just?

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:10 pm

I don't think what it was is particularly relevant. The information is as stands: They're asking him to perform more hours per day than he really has.

-Crissa

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:57 am

The conviction was relevant in the sense that the act committed mitigates our sympathy for the individual. My sympathy for youthful smash and grabs are not high, and while I think drug laws need to go, if you choose to continue to live in a place where you can get into trouble for doing it, I'm not that sympathetic when your caught. That is the game you play with the government if you choose the activity. Move to Amsterdam or Cambodia or Jamaica if you don't like it (Or become an activist to try to change the system. though that is likely the way of the lost cause and even further persecution. but such is the way of those who truly want to see change)

A certain amount of the concept of rehabilitation is supposed to be a deterrence from you committing the crime again. While it sounds like a substantial hardship to combine both work and CS within his allowed time frame, it does sound doable and still preferable to time in prison. And the experience might in fact push him to pursue such activities again; or at least not be as reckless in their pursuit.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:55 am

Tell your friend to call the court and explain that once he'd done the math he'd realized the hours to days ratio was too high and would like an additional 90 days to complete his community service.

Seriously, once the judge has a better grasp of what your friend has been ordered to do, the time period will be relaxed. Mostly they just want evidence of progress, time frames aren't that rigid.

erik · Post by **erik** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:45 pm

ckafrica wrote:while I think drug laws need to go, if you choose to continue to live in a place where you can get into trouble for doing it, I'm not that sympathetic when your caught. That is the game you play with the government if you choose the activity. Move to Amsterdam or Cambodia or Jamaica if you don't like it (Or become an activist to try to change the system. though that is likely the way of the lost cause and even further persecution. but such is the way of those who truly want to see change)

Or possibly move to Massachusetts if their ballot initiative passes.

http://www.nantucketindependent.com/new ... s/013.html

Ballot Question 2: Possession of Marijuana

SUMMARY

This proposed law would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state's criminal record information system. Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Offenders under the age of 18 would be subject to the same forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense, the same $100 penalty.

Offenders under 18 and their parents or legal guardian would be notified of the offense and the option for the offender to complete a drug awareness program developed by the state Department of Youth Services. Such programs would include 10 hours of community service and at least four hours of instruction or group discussion concerning the use and abuse of marijuana and other drugs and emphasizing early detection and prevention of substance abuse.

The penalty for offenders under 18 who fail to complete such a program within one year could be increased to as much as $1,000, unless the offender showed an inability to pay or an inability to participate in such a program, or the unavailability of such a program. Such an offender's parents could also be held liable for the increased penalty. Failure by an offender under 17 to complete such a program could also be a basis for a delinquency proceeding.

The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol ("THC"), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one's body.

Under the proposed law, possessing an ounce or less of marijuana could not be grounds for state or local government entities imposing any other penalty, sanction, or disqualification, such as denying student financial aid, public housing, public financial assistance including unemployment benefits, the right to operate a motor vehicle, or the opportunity to serve as a foster or adoptive parent. The proposed law would allow local ordinances or bylaws that prohibit the public use of marijuana, and would not affect existing laws, practices, or policies concerning operating a motor vehicle or taking other actions while under the influence of marijuana, unlawful possession of prescription forms of marijuana, or selling, manufacturing, or trafficking in marijuana.

The money received from the new civil penalties would go to the city or town where the offense occurred.

A "YES" vote would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties.

A "NO" vote would make no change in state criminal laws concerning possession of marijuana.

Short summary, changing possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana to a civil offense only (like a speeding ticket) with a $100 fine, and a drug awareness class.

Is reason coming to America? Holy crap!

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:08 pm

Yeah put DEA can still come in and bust your ass on federal charges to the best of my knowledge.

Canada almost came to reason a few years ago but the government was placed under immense pressure by the US

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:31 pm

clikml wrote: Short summary, changing possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana to a civil offense only (like a speeding ticket) with a $100 fine, and a drug awareness class.

Is reason coming to America? Holy crap!

No, it's not coming. That ballot will be shot down by the very same puritans that have shit upon our way of life since the beginning.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:18 pm

Well, that's the law in California and several other states that have decided there's far more important things to spend jail time in than people who have a little bit of a drug no more harmful than many things which are legal.

-Crissa

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:00 am

See
http://www.canorml.org/laws/calmjlaws.html

In particular the bottom

Federal Law: Marijuana is also illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Federal charges are typically brought only in large cases where commercial distribution is suspected (e.g., cultivation of several hundred plants).

While it is only typically larger cases, they can use the laws to harass activists.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:40 pm

clikml wrote:
ckafrica wrote:while I think drug laws need to go, if you choose to continue to live in a place where you can get into trouble for doing it, I'm not that sympathetic when your caught. That is the game you play with the government if you choose the activity. Move to Amsterdam or Cambodia or Jamaica if you don't like it (Or become an activist to try to change the system. though that is likely the way of the lost cause and even further persecution. but such is the way of those who truly want to see change)
Or possibly move to Massachusetts if their ballot initiative passes.

http://www.nantucketindependent.com/new ... s/013.html

Ballot Question 2: Possession of Marijuana

SUMMARY

This proposed law would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state's criminal record information system. Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Offenders under the age of 18 would be subject to the same forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense, the same $100 penalty.

Offenders under 18 and their parents or legal guardian would be notified of the offense and the option for the offender to complete a drug awareness program developed by the state Department of Youth Services. Such programs would include 10 hours of community service and at least four hours of instruction or group discussion concerning the use and abuse of marijuana and other drugs and emphasizing early detection and prevention of substance abuse.

The penalty for offenders under 18 who fail to complete such a program within one year could be increased to as much as $1,000, unless the offender showed an inability to pay or an inability to participate in such a program, or the unavailability of such a program. Such an offender's parents could also be held liable for the increased penalty. Failure by an offender under 17 to complete such a program could also be a basis for a delinquency proceeding.

The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol ("THC"), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one's body.

Under the proposed law, possessing an ounce or less of marijuana could not be grounds for state or local government entities imposing any other penalty, sanction, or disqualification, such as denying student financial aid, public housing, public financial assistance including unemployment benefits, the right to operate a motor vehicle, or the opportunity to serve as a foster or adoptive parent. The proposed law would allow local ordinances or bylaws that prohibit the public use of marijuana, and would not affect existing laws, practices, or policies concerning operating a motor vehicle or taking other actions while under the influence of marijuana, unlawful possession of prescription forms of marijuana, or selling, manufacturing, or trafficking in marijuana.

The money received from the new civil penalties would go to the city or town where the offense occurred.

A "YES" vote would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties.

A "NO" vote would make no change in state criminal laws concerning possession of marijuana.

Short summary, changing possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana to a civil offense only (like a speeding ticket) with a $100 fine, and a drug awareness class.

Is reason coming to America? Holy crap!

It's also making it so you can be "arrested" (wrong word, I know, but I don't know the right word) after having smoked the pot. As far as I know, the police can't do anything after the joint's done, only if they catch you while smoking (or, of course, in possession).

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:16 pm

SphereOfFeetMan wrote: I didn't think it should be relevant. If it is, here is the situation: Years ago when he was younger he went on a burglary spree stealing things out of cars. I don't know whether he was a minor or not at this time. He was on this crime spree with two other people, one 13 years old, and one 15. He had a car. He was caught because someone took down his license plate. Either because he was the only one with evidence against him, or because the other two were minors, he was charged with the crimes of all three.

Then recently he was arrested for pot. Either this was just for being in the company of people doing it, or paraphernalia, or doing it himself I am unsure of.

So, given that, is his community service just?

Yeah, pretty much. If he's stealing from people, then he deserves to get whacked with a heavy penalty. Though personally if I'd been the judge I'd have sent his ass to jail.

I don't care so much about drug use, so long as he can afford the drugs with his own money. But this kid sounds like a total punk with no respect for other people or the law. He needs a severe punishment to straighten him out. Once someone starts violating other people's rights to get drug money, then as far as I'm concerned, the legal system can crucify him. A criminal at such a young age is a really bad sign. He needs a really hard life lesson, and absolutely should not be let off with a slap on the wrist.

If he's robbing cars now, it's only a matter of time before he starts robbing people at gunpoint or burglarizing homes.

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:41 pm

Umm, RC? Jail doesn't straighten people out. It almost always leads people to be further enmeshed in criminal culture, which often leads them to commit even more crimes.

Seriously, jail is used to take dangerous people out of society. While it should rehabilitate people, it doesn't and sending people there will not help them one bit.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:43 pm

Cielingcat wrote:Umm, RC? Jail doesn't straighten people out. It almost always leads people to be further enmeshed in criminal culture, which often leads them to commit even more crimes.

Seriously, jail is used to take dangerous people out of society. While it should rehabilitate people, it doesn't and sending people there will not help them one bit.

this is (almost universally) true.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:17 pm

Cielingcat wrote:Umm, RC? Jail doesn't straighten people out. It almost always leads people to be further enmeshed in criminal culture, which often leads them to commit even more crimes.

Seriously, jail is used to take dangerous people out of society. While it should rehabilitate people, it doesn't and sending people there will not help them one bit.

Yeah, you're pretty much right Ceilingcat, and it makes me hate our justice system just thinking about it, because there really isn't a great solution. I still dont' think giving him a slap on the wrist does anything either, but prison probably won't help him either.

Why can't we just stick him in the hole or something for a month? No human contact or anything, just 4 blank walls, so he doesn't get enmeshed in criminal culture. Instead he just gets a really horrible traumatic experience with complete isolation.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:20 pm

RandomCasualty2 wrote:Yeah, you're pretty much right Ceilingcat, and it makes me hate our justice system just thinking about it, because there really isn't a great solution. I still dont' think giving him a slap on the wrist does anything either, but prison probably won't help him either.

Why can't we just stick him in the hole or something for a month? No human contact or anything, just 4 blank walls, so he doesn't get enmeshed in criminal culture. Instead he just gets a really horrible traumatic experience with complete isolation.

Community service, at least when not performed in insane conditions such as those, might actually have a decent chance of working, as long as someone checks for drugs meanwhile. OTOH, 1 month completely alone might drive him literally insane.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:27 pm

RandomCasualty2 wrote: If he's robbing cars now, it's only a matter of time before he starts robbing people at gunpoint or burglarizing homes.

Not quite the same thing, but I had a few friends back in high school who shoplifted well of $10k worth of merchandise & cash over a period of about 3 years. As far as I know, they've just completely stopped. That's not because they were arrested and made to do community service.

My hypothesis is that rampant theft of that kind is a phase that some people go through. Whether it's cultural, biological, or some combination of the two, teenagers often do really dumb and destructive things. Then they stop (unless they've become meth addicts or something equally shity).

The 'locking them away forever' angle really wouldn't have accomplished anything: keeping them there would cost well over the amount they stole. The best solution, had they been caught, would probably have been fines and community service.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:31 pm

The hole isn't a universally traumatic experience, or so I hear... It kinda just depends on how creative you are...

I've heard of people in Alcatraz, I think, surviving iso by throwing a button in the air and trying to find it (he either clsoed his eyes, or the hole was pitch black, I can't remember.)

The Gaming Den

Cruel and unusual punishment?

Cruel and unusual punishment?

Re: Cruel and unusual punishment?