>>>>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
