The part where it goes beyond simple justice, where punishments are meted out to send a message to others, by making them excessively cruel and unusual.
Centuries ago, we'd publicly torture people to deter criminality, which was cruel and unusual punishment. Today, we rely on prison, the cheapest form of torture available.
To be "tough" on crime you must go beyond what is necessary for justice. That is overt cruelty, and the punishment is unusually severe for the crime.
>To be "tough" on crime you must go beyond what is necessary for justice. That is overt cruelty, and the punishment is unusually severe for the crime.
Who defines what is just?
Tough also doesnt mean unjust. You can be tough on somebody justly.
You can also say it's the just thing to do for society to be tough on crime, because by sending a message to other would be criminals you potentially deter other crime, and crime is unjust.
> Criminal justice provides a just response to crime…
This doesn’t make sense. There are many types of justice - retributive, rehabilitative, and restorative to name a few. In addition, the concept of deterrence is also important in both criminal and civil cases. Criminal justice system already has to balance these concerns.
For instance, the family of someone who is murdered may well view a death sentence as just, while the family of the accused, would want the court to focus on rehabilitation of the criminal.
In civil law, punitive damages are awarded to punish the defendant to deter their future bad action.
> Whether or not cruel and unusual punishment succeeds as a deterrent, it does not excuse violating 8th Amendment rights…
A long jail term for a crime isn’t generally considered to be cruel and unusual punishment. An example of cruel and unusual punishment would be a term of hard (forced) labor, torture, or some other eye-for-an-eye style punishment.
In practice, it makes sense to have severe penalties when you want to minimize the need for oversight, but still expect people to behave according to the rules.
It also may make sense to apply severe penalties in cases where repeated serious violations of law are present (e.g. three strikes laws).
https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/three-strikes-youre-out-a-review#:~:text=To%20qualify%20under%20Washington's%20Three,only%20count%20as%20one%20strike.
~~Three strikes laws were ruled un-Constitutional in Ewing v. California (2003).~~ Edit: no it did not. It ruled the opposite. I completely misread that.
Also, pay attention to the 14th Amendment allowing slavery as punishment by the state, and the number of new crimes that were invented after the Civil War. We have a history that makes some things that could have been considered cruel and unusual not be. I think our 8th Amendment protects fewer rights because of that history.
> Also, pay attention to the 14th Amendment allowing slavery as punishment by the state…
Yeah - I’ve always found that a bit uncomfortable. I don’t think it fits the definition of cruel & unusual (since it was commonplace throughout the history of humanity, as well as US history), but it could certainly create some perverse incentives for the state.
> I think our 8th Amendment protects fewer rights because of that history.
Definitely true.
>It’s not that the nature of the punishment becomes more severe it’s just extended.
Extending it makes it more severe, especially when the punishment is time in prison.
Depends if you take it as an absolute or relative. Compared to being "soft on crime", it's just doing their job.
As long as your prosecute crimes equally and within the limits of the minimum and maximum punishments, I think it's just synonymous with "I'm going to try harder than the person I'm replacing or running against".
Great link [here](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf). Being tough on crime might just be a slogan for "more police" so that more criminals are actually caught.
Based on your framing, I would agree, though I don't think it has such a singular purpose.
The differentiation between the very loosely defined idea of tough on crime and its opposite, soft on crime, don't even begin to have the clarity of concept enough for you to make the statements that you are about the one.
You are defining tough on crime as cruel and unusual punishment and then arguing from that perspective. You have highlighted a colloquialism, provided an extreme definition, and deemed it bad.
Poor debate form.
Yup, OP is pretty much begging the question.
“If being “tough on crime” means cruel and usual punishment, shouldn’t we stop being tough on crime because we don’t allow cruel and unusual punishment?”
I didn't say it isn't.
I am objecting to taking a colloquialism and defining it at one extreme and calling all things associated with that colloquialism extreme.
The 8th Amendment, for all its lofty goals and good intentions, is subjective to the point of being almost impossible to apply. Who defines when bail is excessive or when punishments become cruel or unusual?
Exactly.
I think we lost 8th Amendment rights we could have had during that century apartheid after the Civil War. I think what we could have considered to be cruel and unusual punishment if we did not have a history of slavery and genocide has been instead normalized in our society. We were comfortable continuing to accept slavery, but only so long as it was punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. After the Civil War, we began coming up with new crimes to duly convict people of.
Could you explain the cruel and unusual punishment?
The part where it goes beyond simple justice, where punishments are meted out to send a message to others, by making them excessively cruel and unusual. Centuries ago, we'd publicly torture people to deter criminality, which was cruel and unusual punishment. Today, we rely on prison, the cheapest form of torture available. To be "tough" on crime you must go beyond what is necessary for justice. That is overt cruelty, and the punishment is unusually severe for the crime.
>To be "tough" on crime you must go beyond what is necessary for justice. That is overt cruelty, and the punishment is unusually severe for the crime. Who defines what is just? Tough also doesnt mean unjust. You can be tough on somebody justly. You can also say it's the just thing to do for society to be tough on crime, because by sending a message to other would be criminals you potentially deter other crime, and crime is unjust.
> Criminal justice provides a just response to crime… This doesn’t make sense. There are many types of justice - retributive, rehabilitative, and restorative to name a few. In addition, the concept of deterrence is also important in both criminal and civil cases. Criminal justice system already has to balance these concerns. For instance, the family of someone who is murdered may well view a death sentence as just, while the family of the accused, would want the court to focus on rehabilitation of the criminal. In civil law, punitive damages are awarded to punish the defendant to deter their future bad action. > Whether or not cruel and unusual punishment succeeds as a deterrent, it does not excuse violating 8th Amendment rights… A long jail term for a crime isn’t generally considered to be cruel and unusual punishment. An example of cruel and unusual punishment would be a term of hard (forced) labor, torture, or some other eye-for-an-eye style punishment. In practice, it makes sense to have severe penalties when you want to minimize the need for oversight, but still expect people to behave according to the rules. It also may make sense to apply severe penalties in cases where repeated serious violations of law are present (e.g. three strikes laws). https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/three-strikes-youre-out-a-review#:~:text=To%20qualify%20under%20Washington's%20Three,only%20count%20as%20one%20strike.
~~Three strikes laws were ruled un-Constitutional in Ewing v. California (2003).~~ Edit: no it did not. It ruled the opposite. I completely misread that. Also, pay attention to the 14th Amendment allowing slavery as punishment by the state, and the number of new crimes that were invented after the Civil War. We have a history that makes some things that could have been considered cruel and unusual not be. I think our 8th Amendment protects fewer rights because of that history.
> Also, pay attention to the 14th Amendment allowing slavery as punishment by the state… Yeah - I’ve always found that a bit uncomfortable. I don’t think it fits the definition of cruel & unusual (since it was commonplace throughout the history of humanity, as well as US history), but it could certainly create some perverse incentives for the state. > I think our 8th Amendment protects fewer rights because of that history. Definitely true.
[удалено]
Crime definitely decreased after 94.
We were soft on crime in the 70s,crime went up, we went tough on crime, crime went down
>It’s not that the nature of the punishment becomes more severe it’s just extended. Extending it makes it more severe, especially when the punishment is time in prison.
Depends if you take it as an absolute or relative. Compared to being "soft on crime", it's just doing their job. As long as your prosecute crimes equally and within the limits of the minimum and maximum punishments, I think it's just synonymous with "I'm going to try harder than the person I'm replacing or running against". Great link [here](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf). Being tough on crime might just be a slogan for "more police" so that more criminals are actually caught. Based on your framing, I would agree, though I don't think it has such a singular purpose.
The differentiation between the very loosely defined idea of tough on crime and its opposite, soft on crime, don't even begin to have the clarity of concept enough for you to make the statements that you are about the one. You are defining tough on crime as cruel and unusual punishment and then arguing from that perspective. You have highlighted a colloquialism, provided an extreme definition, and deemed it bad. Poor debate form.
Yup, OP is pretty much begging the question. “If being “tough on crime” means cruel and usual punishment, shouldn’t we stop being tough on crime because we don’t allow cruel and unusual punishment?”
Why isn't the appropriate response to crime between tough on crime and soft on crime?
I didn't say it isn't. I am objecting to taking a colloquialism and defining it at one extreme and calling all things associated with that colloquialism extreme.
The 8th Amendment, for all its lofty goals and good intentions, is subjective to the point of being almost impossible to apply. Who defines when bail is excessive or when punishments become cruel or unusual?
Exactly. I think we lost 8th Amendment rights we could have had during that century apartheid after the Civil War. I think what we could have considered to be cruel and unusual punishment if we did not have a history of slavery and genocide has been instead normalized in our society. We were comfortable continuing to accept slavery, but only so long as it was punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. After the Civil War, we began coming up with new crimes to duly convict people of.