Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (3960)	8/10/2000 7:28:18 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13057

I believe it should be interpreted as a static document. If and when it needs to be changed there is the amendment process. As far as cruel and unusual punishment, I think the idea that cruel and unusual punishments are prohibited is what should be static. In regards to what punishments constitute cruel and unusual punishments that could perhaps be a bit more flexible because that is not actually specified in the words of the constitution. The constitution itself is somewhat flexible, I don't think it needs extra flexibility added to it that is not in the document itself. If the "living constitution" allows some of the things that are interpreted as constitutional now, then perhaps it is time to "kill" it. Tim

To: The Philosopher who wrote (3960)	8/11/2000 9:41:02 AM
From: dave rose	Respond to of 13057

<<< But consider, then, that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment would still allow flogging, branding, etc., none of which were considered cruel or unusual in 1787. Should we allow those today? >>>>> I have always thought in the back of my mind that flogging may not be such a bad idea for some types of crimes. When a person is arrested for stealing cars a number of times it seems that it does no good to put him in jail for a few months as he will continue his profession as soon as he is released. Maybe a policy of a few marks of a cat-o-nine tails on his back may persuade him to pursue another profession. It would save costs in jail time, maybe be an incentive to other potential operators to cease and desist and make our streets more safe. It would be used on such crimes as robbery, assault, maybe rape. If we punish an innocent person the results would not be desirable but they would not be catastrophic. I would like to hear other thoughts on this subject. daverose