Originally Posted by
ConHog
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Talk about ambiguous writing.......
What's excessive bail? $1M effectively means some people are staying in prison until trial; while others could just write a check and move on.
As for cruel and unusual punishment. If the gov't started waterboarding every person convicted of DUI then that suddenly wouldn't be unusual punishment, would it?
It would be neither unusual nor cruel, since the subject knows it won't actually injure him, and will end soon. Whipping or torture, might be a different situation.
Back to the subject:
The spirit of the 8th is obvious and clear, just as its detail is completely lacking. Obviously some things must be evaluated case by case, and details will vary as much as the cases do. Bail of $100 might be as effective on a homeless guy, as a bail of $1 million on a wealthy guy, for the same suspected crime. The Framers obviously had this in mind, and had no intention of requiring the same bail for the same crime, for the reason you pointed out. Ditto (to a lesser extent) for fines. Even our present law often specifies a maximum fine, regardless of wealth or income level; but does not specify an exact fine for all.
The purpose of a judge (and even the reason he is called that) is to evaluate each case and come up with a DIFFERENT bail or fine, even for similar crimes, depending on circumstances, including but not limited to wealth.
The Framers knew that. It seems that only some of our current pundits, obsessed with abolute equality regardless of actual circumstances, remain ignorant of this necessity.
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 06-11-2012 at 01:13 PM.
"The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com