1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. MISC.LEGAL.MODERATED

  • Re: Are jurisdictions free to pass "cruel and unusual laws" ?

    From Stan Brown@21:1/5 to S K on Thu Dec 14 09:48:56 2023
    On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 08:10:19 -0800 (PST), S K wrote:
    there is a prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishments -
    but are "cruel and unusual" laws such as homicide charges against
    women who receive abortions, consistent with the constitution?

    There is no prohibition of "cruel and unusual" laws, as such, in the
    U.S. constitution. That the Texas law is, in your opinion and mine,
    evil and misguided does not make it unconstitutional. (It probably
    would have been, under the "privileges and immunities" clause of the
    U.S. Constitution, if there were a Federal right for a woman to
    control her own body; but the Supreme Court put an end to that right
    before Texas passed its law.)

    Legislatures have passed a boatload of bad laws, though I agree this
    one is extreme. But the courts don't strike down a law because it's
    bad or even merely foolish. The theory is that in a democracy the
    people can elect new legislators who will repeal a law that the
    people disagree with. You can judge how well that theory works by the
    fact that a number of states(*) have found it necessary to add
    provision for a referendum to their constitutions.

    (*) 23 states, listed at
    <https://ballotpedia.org/Veto_referendum>
    The list does not include Texas.

    --
    Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
    Shikata ga nai...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 14 09:50:37 2023
    According to S K <[email protected]>:
    there is a prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishments - but are "cruel and unusual" laws such as homicide charges
    against women who receive abortions, consistent with the constitution?

    It entirely depends on what a majority of 9 people in Washington DC
    decide.

    Public hangings and flogging were both considered acceptable until
    sometime in the middle of the 20th century, now they aren't. Recent
    events in Texas tell us that in the view of that state's government,
    no punishment of pregnant women is too cruel or unusual, but it's
    anyone's guess what would happen if appeals made it to SCOTUS.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to John Levine on Fri Dec 15 08:19:16 2023
    On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 09:50:37 -0800, John Levine wrote:

    Public hangings and flogging were both considered acceptable until
    sometime in the middle of the 20th century, now they aren't.

    Depends where you are. Although it is still a head wobbling fact that
    Londoners could take the underground (subway) to the last public
    execution in 1868. I believe the company put on special services.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Fri Dec 15 15:08:01 2023
    Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
    John Levine wrote:

    Public hangings and flogging were both considered acceptable until
    sometime in the middle of the 20th century, now they aren't.

    Depends where you are. Although it is still a head wobbling fact that Londoners could take the underground (subway) to the last public
    execution in 1868. I believe the company put on special services.

    Hanging was still allowed as a punishment for murder in Utah until 1980.
    In that states the condemned can chose to be hung (these days legal
    injection) or shot (to shed blood as a way to repent in the Mormon
    religion).


    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)