> In article <iY-dnbPvGtxAJh3VnZ2dnUVZ_uLinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Newk Indofman" <newk.indofman@lovesyou.org> wrote:
>
>> The prinicples of the US justice system are supposed to involve *humane*
>> treatment of criminals, because allegedly, we are a *humane* people. If
>> the
>> *cruel and unusual* is what you would prefer, perhaps you should go live
>> under the rule of the Taliban, where you'll feel more at home.
>
> Note that "cruel and unusual" is modifying "punishment", not
> "treatment". We can still treat criminals cruelly and unusually, as
> long as that treatment constitutes ordinary punishment.
>
> Refusing health care to someone is certainly cruel *treatment*, but
> it's hardly cruel *punishment* for a sociopath who remorselessly
> slaughtered a pregnant woman and her viable child.
>
> It would however be cruel punishment for a thief or jaywalker.
>
> What constitutes cruel punishment is context dependent, because
> punishment itself is a context dependent concept. In a crime with
> victims, I'd even argue that any punishment up to and including "eye
> for an eye" is not cruel---it's deserved.
the US justice system. "Eye for an eye" is not addressed in the US justice
humane to throw this woman in a dumpster to die. What does that say about
