Eighth Amendment repealed

If the Eighth Amendment is repealed, which punishments are most likely to make a return? I was thinking hanging, drawing, and quartering, burning at the stake, stoning, and castration.

I believe hanging is still an option in Washington State. Given American culture, I really doubt drawing and quartering, burning at the stake, or stoning would ever be implemented. Castration for sex offenders, this I could see being adopted here. Actually, I think in some individual cases, but not as general state policy, some sex offenders have been given lighter prison sentences in exchange for agreeing to be castrated.
 
I believe hanging is still an option in Washington State. Given American culture, I really doubt drawing and quartering, burning at the stake, or stoning would ever be implemented. Castration for sex offenders, this I could see being adopted here. Actually, I think in some individual cases, but not as general state policy, some sex offenders have been given lighter prison sentences in exchange for agreeing to be castrated.

I meant hanging, drawing, and quartering as a unit.
 
I believe hanging is still an option in Washington State. Given American culture, I really doubt drawing and quartering, burning at the stake, or stoning would ever be implemented. Castration for sex offenders, this I could see being adopted here. Actually, I think in some individual cases, but not as general state policy, some sex offenders have been given lighter prison sentences in exchange for agreeing to be castrated.

I recall back in the day, during a caning incident in Singapore, when there was some discussion of bring back similar types of punishment.

The idea was that, say a flogging would be equal punishment to say, a 6 month jail term, but with less expense and less disruption to the person's life, career, family, ect.
 
Can't seem to find the source, but I read ages ago that at the time of its passage the meaning of the 8th was clear and that it was been linguistic drift and natural nit-picking of lawyers that allowed the modern confusion. Initially, "cruel and unusual punishment" was explicitly intended and interpreted as torture. Pure and simple.
 
Can't seem to find the source, but I read ages ago that at the time of its passage the meaning of the 8th was clear and that it was been linguistic drift and natural nit-picking of lawyers that allowed the modern confusion. Initially, "cruel and unusual punishment" was explicitly intended and interpreted as torture. Pure and simple.

Seems reasonable.

If you do find the source, please pass it on.
 
Scalia's opinion in Harmelin v. Michigan has an extensive discussion on the history of the amendment. One thing I remember from it is that there is a similar provision in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, and that the English provision was only intended to prevent illegal punishments.
 
Admiral Matt said:
"cruel and unusual punishment" was explicitly intended and interpreted as torture.
If that's true, defense of "enhanced interrogation" is grounds for a President being impeached, isn't it...? Since he's obliged to "uphold & defend the Constitution"?

Which still leaves the obvious question in my mind: what possible lunatic reason could there be to repeal this? What kind of insane proposition would suggest effectively endorsing torture as a Constitutional amendment?:eek::eek::eek::eek::confused::confused:
 
If that's true, defense of "enhanced interrogation" is grounds for a President being impeached, isn't it...? Since he's obliged to "uphold & defend the Constitution"?

Which still leaves the obvious question in my mind: what possible lunatic reason could there be to repeal this? What kind of insane proposition would suggest effectively endorsing torture as a Constitutional amendment?:eek::eek::eek::eek::confused::confused:

If the Supreme Court were to hold that something popular, like life without parole, were cruel and unusual, it is conceivable that Congress would pass an amendment to make it Constitutional again. They'd be more likely to simple add it on to the 8th Amendment than outright repeal the thing itself, though.
 

King Thomas

Banned
I recall back in the day, during a caning incident in Singapore, when there was some discussion of bring back similar types of punishment.

The idea was that, say a flogging would be equal punishment to say, a 6 month jail term, but with less expense and less disruption to the person's life, career, family, ect.

I would rather be flogged then rot in a US prison, if I had to pick one of the two choices.
 
If that's true, defense of "enhanced interrogation" is grounds for a President being impeached, isn't it...? Since he's obliged to "uphold & defend the Constitution"?

Which still leaves the obvious question in my mind: what possible lunatic reason could there be to repeal this? What kind of insane proposition would suggest effectively endorsing torture as a Constitutional amendment?:eek::eek::eek::eek::confused::confused:

There's no part of the Bill of Rights that is the subject of more frivolous litigation than the Eighth Amendment. Prisoners with too much time on their hands file all sorts of nonsensical claims (not enough channels on their television; don't like the menu; etc.), more to spite the authorities than from any real hope of success. If the Eighth Amendment were to be repealed it would be to eliminate this sort of claim, and would come with a replacement right that was more tightly worded.
 
Top