From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Hyperbole about Clarence Thomas
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 21:52:46 GMT

In <1992Oct6.191246.27893@ils.nwu.edu>, BOB HOOKER writes:

>In article <20777@plains.NoDak.edu>, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
>writes:
>>
> In article <1992Sep25.210838.3942@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu (
>> >The idea that the "creul and unusual punishment" only applies to sentences
>> >is idiotic,  there is nothing in the constitution to cause anyone to take
>> >this stance.
>>
>> This is typical, liberal, re-write the Constitution nonsense.

This isn't very constructive and not very persuasive.

>And this is typical right wing bullshit.  In my argument where is there an
>effort to re-write the consitiution.

This is even LESS constructive and LESS persuasive.

>>
>> >Thomas's reasonoing that this clause only protects an individual at
>> >sentencing but does not protect him while in the prision is just shit.
>> >Thomas, who is the worst Justice on the Court,  is saying that the
>> >constitution asserts that you can not sentence someone to torture for a
>> >certain crime,  but if the guars at the prision torture the prosioner they
>> >are not violating any of his constitutional rights.

Thomas is the worst?  About WHAT?  I think any liberal would automatically
treat Thomas differently than any other justice.  Scalia is probably worse
for liberals, but Thomas, because of all of the hysteria around him, is the
favorite liberal whipping boy.

>>
>> Wow, a legal scholar, and he knows all those legal terms.  If a person was
>> sentenced to jail for a crime, that's fair.  If the guards beat him, then
>> you sue for assualt and battery, or whatever.  They MAY be violating his
>> constitutional rights, but not the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause.

>Why not, if the guards beat him with the consent of the administration why
>is it not creul and unusual punishment.

Technically (though I don't advocate it), the Constutition says "cruel AND
unusual punishment."  Around the world, the death penalty is not unusual
(though it may be cruel), and neither is torture.  However, as cruel as they
may be, they are NOT cruel AND unusual.  Just a semantic clarification.

Realistically, though, I agree that state-sanctioned beatings should be
outlawed, and those responsible should be held on criminal charges.

>Youre stupid reasoning here has bottomed out to simply it is not creul and
>unusual punishement because it is not creul and unusual punsihement.

>>
>> >If the media didn't explain it how did you learn about it,  better yet how
>> >did I learn about since I knew of the case also?
>>
>> Try watching Court TV sometime, they spend a lot more time than the regular
>> media, looking for sound bites.  As they summed it up, this was an
>> extremely complicated case, not just a video.  The cops were tried for
>> trying to KILL King, not just beating him.  Had they been tried for
>> the beating, they probably would have been convicted.  Trying to prove
>> they were trying to kill him was a little more difficult.
 >

>Where did you make this up?  The police were tried for a number of things
>including assault,  but murder or attempted murder was not a
>charge.

Actually, I believe that the charge was "assault with intent to commit serious
bodily harm."  The *intent* portion of that sentence is what sprung the LA
Four.  I have heard legal beagles tell me that in other states, this roughly
the equivalent of attempted murder.  The prosecution had to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that while the officers were beating King, they were intending
(that's the key word, INTENDING) to inflict serious and permanent bodily harm.
Without such proof (IMHO, assault WAS proven, but not intent), the jury could
not convict.  It's all or nothing.  If the jury feels that the police did use
excessive force, but did not intend to inflict such harm, then they can not
convict on a lesser charge (i.e. simple assault with a deadly weapon).  They
MUST convict for the charged crime, or acquit.


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
****************************************************************************
FLASH!  Card-carrying Libertarian attempts to solve problems in the REAL
        WORLD!  Film at 11...
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion