Forum Home | Login

Sean Conners aka SConn1

Join Date 03/2004

the Least Popular Ammendment

talkin bout #8, protection from cruel and/or unusual punishment...

Most people who are at all active in politics or have any interest in our government usually have their favorite ammendments to the Constitution.

Some love the 1st Ammendment. Journalists, activists and anyone with an unpopular or at least a perceived minority voice will often cite their 1st ammendment rights to speech, religion and assembly.

Some Love the 2nd Ammendment. Some to the point they fantasize about someone actually trying to pry the gun from their "cold, dead hands."

When we don't want to rat ourselves out, or on the advice of our cuncil, the 5th ammendment to our Constitution is not only cited but used as a battle cry quite often. One recent justice employee was so big on it she invoked her priveledge before any questions were even asked.

Some toast the repeal of Prohibition, and if it hadn't been repealed, the 18th ammendment to our Constitution might be the least popular.

But since it has been repealed, the least popular has to be the 8th ammendment. The text reads...

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Despite this, most people, especially when freely expressing themselves, will pay no heed to this protection. In their mind, the harsher the better for the guilty. Especially when we just don't like the person. This comes out in impassioned cries for opponents to "burn and rot in hell" over a simple disagreement. Or to wish some other great harm on someone who has offended us in some minor way, in the big picture. But at those moments, it is not the "punishment fitting the crime" that is important to us. It is that the offender feel some wrath that proves that the offended dare not even be challenged in the future.

And it has really become evident in the Paris Hilton spectacle recently.

Miss Hilton has been convicted of violating her probation after a DUI had her license suspended. The judge sentenced her t o 45 days in jail. The nation applauded.

Never mind that the usual for such an offense is 5-15 days, and most people try to b.s. their way out of it.

Miss Hilton was a disgrace in court, trying to blame everyone around her for her own selfish deeds. No doubt. But again, that is typical in these courts. Many who find themselves in this predicament are usually not hardened criminals and are scared to death to see their 1st glimpse of the inside of a jail cell after visiting hours. So they blame everone else to try to save their neck.

And the few who are violated that are more advanced in the criminal arts are usually being pulled in because they want the guy or gal there for another, more serious investigation. And those cases are handled and sentenced a little differently.

Now before anyone gets the idea that I am a Paris fan, think again...I can't stand the lil wench.

But her Constitutional rights could be violated here, and that is never good for the rest of us. Keep in mind that most everyone never cite or knew about her actual courtroom alibis, but cited the fact that she is a "rich lil ho that thinks she's above the law" as justification for her sentence. They cited their hate of her going in. People were calling for her getting "the max" since before she went to court last week.

I don't want to see her pardoned, but at the same time, she doesn't deserve a more cruel or an unusual punishment than the rest of us either. And one could argue that the fact that she is being given a report date rather than just being hauled away like most others was unfairly lenient to her. But unfair leniency doesn't justify unusual cruelness on the flip side.

Also, the prison she is going to often lets people out early, as they are overcrowded. But before she has even arrived, it is being reported that she won't be considered for that in fear of public outcry that they were too soft on her. Even tho non-celebrities who are non violent offenders of this minor (overall) type are usually the 1st to be released. So her status is potentially causing an unfair bias there too.

I'm not telling anyone that they shouldn't feel a little glee in the fact that this girl, who was trying to skirt around the law, at the least, and does live in a way that offends many (including me, sometimes) finally got told "no" in an almost unappealable way. And Paris Hilton spending an extra week or 2 behind bars might not trigger armageddon. But the 8th Ammendment to our Constitution is an important principle that defines us and seperates us from some other societies who don't respect the rule of law as we do. And breaking that principle for a moment of selfish satisfaction while another American (who I don't llike either) has their Constitutional rights flagrantly violated for the purposes of satsfying a "mob rule" kind of mentality is simply wrong and un-American, in my view.

And once we start compromising this principle for nothing more than a shallow, selfish satisfaction, what else will we let go by the wayside for less than vital reasons? Will it be those rights that you cherish and tout? Will it be your rights that are being tossed aside for the satisfaction of "mob rule?"

I certainly hope not.

history

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

5-15 for a FIRST offense. However this was the THIRD offense. So 45 seems to be in line with the crime. IN addition, since she was on probation, the probation should have been revoked and she would then have to serve the full term for the original offense (which is not clear if that is part of the 45 days).

Sorry, I have no sympathy for a tripple dipper. 45 Days in a minimum security facillity is better than most of us would have gotten in the same situation.

Successfully updated karma reason!

5-15 for a FIRST offense. However this was the THIRD offense

i think you might be mixing some things up there. she was hauled in on the probation violation stemming from the DUI. the charges are all related to each other. you re making it like she got DUI'd 3 times. as i understand it, someone who violates the terms of their probation on the 1st offense of DUI gets 5-15 typically.

Successfully updated karma reason!

you re making it like she got DUI'd 3 times

No, driving on a suspended license 3 times. She has 4 offenses. DUI, and 3 Suspended licenses. That is easily 45 days.

Successfully updated karma reason!

No, driving on a suspended license 3 times. She has 4 offenses. DUI, and 3 Suspended licenses

that's not what i'm reading guy, with a ll due respect...could you source that?

Successfully updated karma reason!

WWW Link

make that 2 + 1. I misread the article.

On January 15, Hilton was pulled over by the California Highway Patrol. Officers informed her that she was driving on a suspended license and she signed a document acknowledging that she was not to drive, according to papers filed in Superior Court.

Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies stopped Hilton on February 27 and charged her with violating her probation. Police said she was pulled over about 11 p.m. after authorities saw the car speeding with its headlights off.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I have a hard time buying that people really don't agree with the eighth amendment (although we all have that guilty little part of our brain that wouldn't mind being able to really make certain criminals pay for what they did). The problem that a lot of people have with this amendment is that some people like to cry cruel and unusual punishment for all sorts of stupid little things. I don't think that most, or even many people would argue that the eighth isn't needed, since let's face it, sometimes people can do some really messed up things in the name of "justice". I just think that it is really stretching things to say that sentencing someone to an extra week of jail is eroding the protections of this amendment, and I don't think that this is the sort of situation it was meant to cover.

Successfully updated karma reason!

yeah, but 5-15 is still the standard. even tho she had 2 violations of probation, it was still violation of 1 probation sentence. then in april, when she was pulled over, she had her license back. the whole thing seems a little bit suspect. if she was such a danger and needed to go to jail, then why was her suspension not extended when she voiolated probation? remember, this all started over a DUI, a traffic violation. it's kind of like they were being lienient on her, and giving the sign (by returning her license) that she was on her way to freedom, then when the media jumped in, they decided to play extra tough for the cameras. again, i'm not a fan of the girl, it's the principle.

and i'm not sure that principle has been violated,,,just askin questions for the most part.

Successfully updated karma reason!

and i'm not sure that principle has been violated,,,just askin questions for the most part.

I am not familiar with California laws, but in this state, she would have gone to jail after the first one (in all probability). After the second one, that would definitely have been it. I think the principal here is flagrantly flouting the law. Judges are not kind to that kind of violation. IN addition, she was late for her court date. Say what you may, but in a court room a judge is pretty much God, and they do not like being held waiting or shown up in their court room.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I just think that it is really stretching things to say that sentencing someone to an extra week of jail is eroding the protections of this amendment, and I don't think that this is the sort of situation it was meant to cover.

the constitution is about everyone - all the time when it comes to legal matters. not just capitol cases.

although we all have that guilty little part of our brain that wouldn't mind being able to really make certain criminals pay for what they did

that's exactly why the 8th ammendment was put in. to prevent our personal feelings from over riding legal obligations. justice should be blind. not a tool for someone to use to settle personal beefs or abuse to satisfy a mob's demands.

Successfully updated karma reason!

you could be right,,,and where i come from, after a violation, a person is taken into custody and the hearing takes place forthwit...if a person is to be held because of the violation, it is done then and there. if they decide to excuse them and give em another chance, that is decided as well. the part about giving her license back, then, months later, to throw her in jail when it had been deemed she was "rehabilitated" from not being able to drive is still puzzling to me and still doesn't seem "the norm" to me.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

A man gets pulled over by a policeman for speeding.

The police officer has a lot of discretion about what to do.

The man in the car tells the police officer to fuck off. Do you think that the person is more or less likely to get a ticket (let alone be taken in)?

Successfully updated karma reason!

what does that have to do with what we are talkin out brad? no one's talking about a cop's discretionary powers here.

but on that subject, if a cop decides he's going to be tougher because the person is being a jerk and uncooperative, then most would grant him that discretion. but if the cop pulled someone over, and it turns out the person was somebody from the cop's past that he had a personal beef with or was a public figure the cop didn't like, or had a prejudice for any reason, then they do not have the power to be extra tough for those reasons. some of that may be difficult to prove, and cops count on that.

in california, many remember mark furman being scrutinized and all the evidence he found was thrown out and oj walked all because they were able to show a pattern of prejudice merely by others swearing that he had used the "n-word" in the past.

and if a cop comes to my house without a warrant and asks my permission to search, i can tell him "f*ck off" all day long and the law has no right to infringe on my right to express my disapproval in any way i choose.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KarmaGirl

Join Date 03/2001

+118

. the part about giving her license back, then, months later, to throw her in jail when it had been deemed she was "rehabilitated" from not being able to drive is still puzzling to me and still doesn't seem "the norm" to me.

A lot of court systems are very slow, so it was probably on the books for a long time, they just hadn't gotten to it.

She got what she deserved. She got popped for reckless driving while drunk. They let her off on probation. She violated once, for which they had her sign a statement that she knew she was in violation. Then, she violated probation again. Sorry, but I can't see how 45 days in jail for what she did is considered "cruel" or "unusual" punishment.

The only thing that is cruel about this whole thing is that every time I turn on the TV I have to hear some crap about "poor Paris". blah...blah..blah

Successfully updated karma reason!

A lot of court systems are very slow, so it was probably on the books for a long time, they just hadn't gotten to it.

but what i don't understand is that when people are in probation violation, they haul them before a judge to determine their freedom right away usually. maybe someone in california can tell me if it works the same way there as it does in the other 49.

Sorry, but I can't see how 45 days in jail for what she did is considered "cruel" or "unusual" punishment.

if the usual punishment is 5-15 for such a violation, then it is unusual, for sure. is it cruel? well, that has yet to be determined. and again, i'm not saying that she is a constitutional victim here, but i am saying that she deserves to be treated fairly, like anyone else.

The only thing that is cruel about this whole thing is that every time I turn on the TV I have to hear some crap about "poor Paris". blah...blah..blah

actually, what i have seen is a mob cry that she deserved even more in some circles. and that aside, the point of the article was pointing out how the 8th ammendment is designed to protect those who most of society or particular interests want to be "cruel and unusual " to. it is the only line of defense the convicted have against undue tyranny. using paris as an example is only being "current eventish" and serves as a case where 95% of the people have no regard for any punishment she could have gotten, no matter how severe. it might be a small issue, but when you are in that situation, and have nothing but the 8th ammendment protecting you from being tyranized by a vengeful judge or a judge carrying out the will of a vengeful mob or special interest, you'll be glad our founders thought of you, i'm sure.

remember, rights are more about things, people and whatnot that you don't like...it's easy to defend the things and people you do. that's just cronyism, circling the wagons, taking care of their own, or whatever way ya wanna phrase it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KarmaGirl

Join Date 03/2001

+118

if the usual punishment is 5-15 for such a violation

Do you have a legal source for that? I have heard otherwise. Remember, this is her second violation. Also, do you have the terms of her probation to look at? How do you know she didn't actually have more violations? Fact is, we don't know. The only way you can say for sure is by digging up her court records. Of course, there is also the possibility that there are more "warnings" on record with her on top of what she was actually cited for, too. That is "other info" that the public doesn't see. They should have just thrown her in jail for drunk driving and been done with it.

California is very slow with hearings. It doesn't shock me at all to hear that it took that long for her judgment nor for there to be a lapse between when she was sentenced and when she will serve the time.

States are very different from each other. Just because something works a certain way in your State doesn't mean it will work that way everywhere.

If this had happened to Joe Shmoe in my neighborhood, I'd hope he would get at least the same punishment. Reckless drunk driving plus 2 accounts of breaking probation.... 45 days in jail isn't much for that.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Do you have a legal source for that? I have heard otherwise

well, i didn't hear it online, but on court tv and greta's show, the legal experts there mostly were saying that 5-15 was typical.

but again,,,this article really isn't about paris. it's about the 8th ammendment. if you just want to vent on paris, feel free...but understand that is hardly the point here. it was an example. and another part of that example that hasn't been brought up as they show up to rip on paris is that there is talk that the prison she is going to VERY commonly releases the offenders early. a recent reality show contestant was let go 2 hours (that's right, hours) into her sentence. and the word is that the people who ecide that have already expressed that she will be denied that typical and common treatment. that also raises questions.

that doesn't mean i've drawn conclusions that her 8th ammendment rights were violated, but i do consider the questions.

like everyone else karma, my "gut" reaction is to be happy that the lil wench finally got told "no" by someone that daddy couldn't pay off. in my view, like many others, she is the prototypical stupid, spoiled whore (to borrow from south park). but my feelings have nothing to do with her dealings with justice. and they shouldn't.

ignoring the consitution in cases where our desire for vengence are greater than our desire for actual justice is a dangerous and destructive thing. in the short term, the ego might be satisfied, but the damage we can do is far more important than any 1 case.

perhaps all of paris's rights were not infringed upon. there is no harm in taking a 2nd look to make sure. but i hope you are not confusing that with a desire to "free paris" or let her off for her crimes.

Successfully updated karma reason!

,,,this article really isn't about paris. it's about the 8th ammendment.

In that case, I think it is the second amendment. But you did make some good arguements for why the 8th is not so hot either.

Successfully updated karma reason!

In that case, I think it is the second amendment

the 2nd is devisive, but does garner broad support. but the 8th is the refuge of the scorned.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KarmaGirl

Join Date 03/2001

+118

there is no harm in taking a 2nd look to make sure. but i hope you are not confusing that with a desire to "free paris" or let her off for her crimes.

I think that I have shown that I took a "second look" at what happened (hence the other questions that I brought up and the other scenarios that have taken place).

You used Paris as the example, therefore I am questioning that example. If you wanted to have a discussion on the 8th and how it's not always withheld, you would have been better off talking about the issues with the ankle alcohol monitors that were putting people in jail wrongfully (which many lost their jobs and other parts of their lives for). Use non-glamorized examples, not overblown media hypes.

Successfully updated karma reason!

but does garner broad support

What about male support???

(oops! Now I am going to get it!)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sorry Sean. I understand what you are saying about the 8th Amendment, but I can't see where 45 days for someone who was given a chance to get off basically scot-free is "excessive" or "cruel and unusual".

She was given a second chance and flaunted it... plain and simple. Yes, she had every right to defend herself and her actions any way she saw fit, and was given that chance... but she blew it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What about male support???

(oops! Now I am going to get it!)

BAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

yer gonna get called a misogynist now... (the popular term of the week)

Successfully updated karma reason!

that's fair. and same with karma's observations. and in hindsight, the example might have not been the best, granted. and i may have argued the point a bit strenuously in her case on some things. but as long as everyone gets the point about the 8th ammendment...to quote george...mission accomplished.

Successfully updated karma reason!

yer gonna get called a misogynist now... (the popular term of the week)

nah, just for the gender impaired groupies.

Successfully updated karma reason!

gender impaired groupies

LMAO!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: