>>>news:nathansanders-0DD686.12414318072008@64.209.0-93.rev.gaoland.net...
>>>>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.
>>>of the US justice system. "Eye for an eye" is not addressed in the US
>>>justice system.
>>>humane to throw this woman in a dumpster to die. What does that say about
