Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
A longer jail term would have been better as I said in my post. He has to go to the diversity training whether he learns from it or not.

Humiliation is a "good" form of punishment, but what does it achieve in the long term?

What do you think a longer jail term would really achieve in the long term?

When compared to public humiliation?

I don't really think 15 days is an acceptable term for what he has done or has been doing. I don't really have the capacity or will power to go into the merits or disadvantages of the American Prison System, but actually punishing him like everybody else is probably a good idea. Singling him out for public humiliation is pretty stupid.

I kinda have to agree... He got 'this' punishment because he is old and white and a judge didn't want to put him in jail for 15 days or something, especially since it would do no good. In cases like this, you basically have them keep escalating their vandalism/harassment until they cross a prosecutable line. This was not intended to rehabilitate, but to make him angrier and see if now he will do something which they can finally arrest him and put him in jail for. If any of us did this we would have been in jail.

They should have just put him in jail. He has committed enough crimes to justify it. I am surprised someone hasn't filed a restraining order which could be easily used to force him to lose his home or make it easier to have him arrested more. The person who adopted those kids must be a saint because she has lots of legal resources available to her along with simple video recording to catch the dude in the act.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This man deserves all he gets, but I'm worried the lawyers are going to get more involved, and possibly see this guy getting some undeserved compensation. Why?

Consider this: (emphasis my own)

Constitution of the United States of America

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS INFLICTED.

The SCOTUS could be all over this like a bad rash, because it certainly qualifies, in my mind, as unusual, even though it's deserved in my view.

What precisely, in your opinion, was cruel and unusual? Bearing in mind that his conviction would be a matter of public record and his actions would be known by the public.

Sophistry. I'll use big capital letters also
ITS NEITHER CRUEL NOR UNUSUAL. EVEN THE FOUNDERS HAD FAR FAR WORSE BEING PEFECTLY LEGAL.

 Frazzled wrote:

Sophistry. I'll use big capital letters also
ITS NEITHER CRUEL NOR UNUSUAL. EVEN THE FOUNDERS HAD FAR FAR WORSE BEING PEFECTLY LEGAL.

You mean the slave owners who declared that all men were created equal, yet only wanted free landowners to be able to vote?

...they'd actually probably be cool with this old guy, now that you mention it.

 LordofHats wrote:
Yes. The Constitution is being dragged through the mud because some old racist was told to standing in public with a sign after 15 years of being a terrible human being.

Woe is us. The end is nigh. REPENT. REPENT!

For the first, and probably the last time, let ME give YOU, some historical perspective

From our old friend wiki:

"The provision was largely inspired by the case in England of Titus Oates who, after the ascension of King James II in 1685, was tried for multiple acts of perjury which had caused many executions of people whom Oates had wrongly accused. Oates was sentenced to imprisonment including an annual ordeal of being taken out for two days pillory plus one day of whipping while tied to a moving cart. The Oates case eventually became a topic of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. The punishment of Oates involved ordinary penalties collectively imposed in a barbaric, excessive and bizarre manner. The reason why the judges in Oates' perjury case were not allowed to impose the death penalty (unlike in the cases of those whom Oates had falsely accused) may be because such a punishment would have deterred even honest witnesses from testifying in later cases"

"In Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947), the Supreme Court assumed arguendo that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Court ruled that it did apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Robinson was the first case in which the Supreme Court applied the Eighth Amendment against the state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Before Robinson, the Eighth Amendment had only been applied against the federal government."

Take that! No idea what the above means


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This man deserves all he gets, but I'm worried the lawyers are going to get more involved, and possibly see this guy getting some undeserved compensation. Why?

Consider this: (emphasis my own)

Constitution of the United States of America

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS INFLICTED.

The SCOTUS could be all over this like a bad rash, because it certainly qualifies, in my mind, as unusual, even though it's deserved in my view.

What precisely, in your opinion, was cruel and unusual? Bearing in mind that his conviction would be a matter of public record and his actions would be known by the public.

Sophistry. I'll use big capital letters also
ITS NEITHER CRUEL NOR UNUSUAL. EVEN THE FOUNDERS HAD FAR FAR WORSE BEING PEFECTLY LEGAL.

Frazz, don't mess with the constitution or SCOTUS. I'm pretty sure that there is a massive, lobby group, with millions of members across America, that will open up a can of whoop-ass on you for disrespecting the 8th!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This man deserves all he gets, but I'm worried the lawyers are going to get more involved, and possibly see this guy getting some undeserved compensation. Why?

Consider this: (emphasis my own)

Constitution of the United States of America

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS INFLICTED.

The SCOTUS could be all over this like a bad rash, because it certainly qualifies, in my mind, as unusual, even though it's deserved in my view.

What precisely, in your opinion, was cruel and unusual? Bearing in mind that his conviction would be a matter of public record and his actions would be known by the public.

Having to hold up that sign was pretty cruel. He may have suffered repetitive strain injury as a result!

Look, I'm just trying to save the tax dollars of hard working Americans from being wasted on court cases at SCOTUS

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For the first, and probably the last time, let ME give YOU, some historical perspective

NEVER!

No seriously. I get what you mean. I'm saying this issue isn't big enought to earn any greater attention from anyone, and not big enough for me to bother to care.

 daedalus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Sophistry. I'll use big capital letters also
ITS NEITHER CRUEL NOR UNUSUAL. EVEN THE FOUNDERS HAD FAR FAR WORSE BEING PEFECTLY LEGAL.

You mean the slave owners who declared that all men were created equal, yet only wanted free landowners to be able to vote?

...they'd actually probably be cool with this old guy, now that you mention it.

No I meant punishments for crimes at the time, horsewhipping, stocks, and such. Considering jail time is the alternative holding a sign is not C&U. There have been many instances of this in the past.

Personally I'd have rather put him in jail.

Frazz, don't mess with the constitution or SCOTUS. I'm pretty sure that there is a massive, lobby group, with millions of members across America, that will open up a can of whoop-ass on you for disrespecting the 8th!

You mean the ACLU? I know, I'm a member.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Having to hold up that sign was pretty cruel. He may have suffered repetitive strain injury as a result!

Look, I'm just trying to save the tax dollars of hard working Americans from being wasted on court cases at SCOTUS

It might have gotten him some fresh air and exercise too, so that might mean one less trip to the doctor

nkelsch wrote:
This was not intended to rehabilitate, but to make him angrier and see if now he will do something which they can finally arrest him and put him in jail for. If any of us did this we would have been in jail.

They should have just put him in jail. He has committed enough crimes to justify it. I am surprised someone hasn't filed a restraining order which could be easily used to force him to lose his home or make it easier to have him arrested more. The person who adopted those kids must be a saint because she has lots of legal resources available to her along with simple video recording to catch the dude in the act.

Do you think jail is intended to rehabilitate?

How would a restraining order force him to lose his home?

There have been enough other instances of being forced to hold a sign declaring your truthful actions that I doubt any court would see this punishment as either cruel or unusual. I myself do not; if anything I think he got off a lot lighter than he should have for some of the stuff he pulled (blowing fumes onto someone's property and sickening them, wtf).

I don't see how anyone could realistically consider holding a sign declaring your truthful actions in public to be cruel and unusual when compared to jail or prison time.

Can you really file a restraining order in someone in their own home? Implementing it would be difficult I imagine.

 Hordini wrote:
I don't see how anyone could realistically consider holding a sign declaring your truthful actions in public to be cruel and unusual when compared to jail or prison time.

Only the type of people who want to make sure their is no justice system...

 Hordini wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
This was not intended to rehabilitate, but to make him angrier and see if now he will do something which they can finally arrest him and put him in jail for. If any of us did this we would have been in jail.

They should have just put him in jail. He has committed enough crimes to justify it. I am surprised someone hasn't filed a restraining order which could be easily used to force him to lose his home or make it easier to have him arrested more. The person who adopted those kids must be a saint because she has lots of legal resources available to her along with simple video recording to catch the dude in the act.

Do you think jail is intended to rehabilitate?

How would a restraining order force him to lose his home?

I don't think jail is intended to rehabilitate, it is to punish and isolate those people from society.

They can get a restraining order which if he trespasses or even talks to or attempts to interact past certain established boundaries, they then can take it past normal harassment and trespassing charges and it would allow them to implement some sentencing so he knew what is coming should he continue to harass/trespass. A no-contact restraining order which carries jail time could address this issue or at least giving him enough rope to hang himself... And once in jail, he loses his house! (or at least doesn't live there)

You make it basically impossible for a hate-filled bigot to exist because we all know he isn't going to live and let live, bite his tongue and sit on his hands. If he can simply grow up and stop interacting totally with the neighbor, then maybe he has at least learned something.

 Hordini wrote:
I don't see how anyone could realistically consider holding a sign declaring your truthful actions in public to be cruel and unusual when compared to jail or prison time.

If anything he is just confirming what is on public record, and being shown that actions have consequences

Things like blowing toxic fumes into another persons property making them ill doesn't seem to have been taken very seriously. Even the 15 days and public humiliation is a bit weak even for the extreme harassment with dog crap and the rest.

Something like this could only happen in America.