The emergence of legal slavery

[Jon Smithie]

You certainly are, this 110% nonsense is typical 21st century crap, along with expressions like "almost exactly" and "new innovation"

lol. My own pet expression peeve is "very unique."

 

[Loxuru]

Perhaps this is not strictly slavery. Let's call it "Disciplinary Institutionalization and Rehabilitation."

And those calling it 'slavery' will join the 'Disciplinary Institutionalization and Rehabilitation Work Brigades', for spreading disinformation. After a public flogging on their bare naked bodies, of course.

The Supreme Court, now packed with justices who are as reactionary as the man to whom they owe their fealty, rule in Barbaria v United States that corporal punishment does not necessarily fall under the "Cruel and Unusual" prohibition of the eighth amendment. "The whipping post, the stocks, the pillory, were in common use during the time of the Founding Fathers," writes the Chief Justice in a unanimous opinion. "It is absurd to suggest that the original intent of these men was to prohibit the use of such devices to further the cause of justice in a well ordered and disciplined society. The application to this court by petitioner for stay is denied, petitioner may be whipped."

As far as I found out, corporal punishment is not unconstitutional in the US. The last public flogging was given in 1952, it seems. Flogging was very common in US prisons during the 19th century as a measure of discipline.

 

[twonines]

lol. My own pet expression peeve is "very unique."

Another one, "half empty"

 

[Jon Smithie]

And those calling it 'slavery' will join the 'Disciplinary Institutionalization and Rehabilitation Work Brigades', for spreading disinformation. After a public flogging on their bare naked bodies, of course.

I had a story idea involving this too. (Forgive the repost, as I think I've posted this previously)

News reporters who anger the administration are subjected to particularly humiliating penalties. After being stripped and flogged, they are sentenced to be gagged while in public and set to sweeping the streets of large cities as their penal servitude. (Considered an appropriate punishment since Newspaper reporters are occasionally referred to as "Muckrakers.")

Here, a young news reporter (Alexis Bledel,) has stuck her nose where it doesn't belong. She is tried and convicted of Dissemination of Disinformation. As part of her sentence, she is gagged and shackled hand and foot, and will be given a heavy broom to sweep the streets for sixteen hours a day. For the next ten years.

As far as I found out, corporal punishment is not unconstitutional in the US. The last public flogging was given in 1952, it seems. Flogging was very common in US prisons during the 19th century as a measure of discipline.

I guess by the 1950's whippings were considered sufficiently "Unusual" that they no longer passed the "Cruel and Unusual" bar to punishment in the eighth amendment. As society evolves, many practices in law that would have been commonplace are now considered "Cruel and Unusual." In any case I was referring primarily to the theory in law referred to as "Original Intent," which seems to becoming more popular among conservative judicial theorists in the U.S. (At least I see more bumper stickers on pick up trucks supporting it, anyway.) The idea is to discern what the founders of a particular law actually meant when they wrote it, so that it can be applied in a logical and consistent manner. Originalists believe that judges who infer from the law rights that were not intended are legislating, or attempting to reform society according to their (usually progressive) sympathies. I think that too strict an adherence to the "Original Intent" doctrine can potentially downplay the evolution that societies go through, especially when that evolution is in a progressive direction.

Under President Crump, my idea is that Justices become really fundamentalist. Since the Founding Fathers did not think whippings, brandings, and pilloryings (?) were cruel and unusual, we shouldn't either, and it's fine if they're re-instituted.

 

[Barbaria1]

Under President Crump, my idea is that Justices become really fundamentalist. Since the Founding Fathers did not think whippings, brandings, and pilloryings (?) were cruel and unusual, we shouldn't either, and it's fine if they're re-instituted.

Entirely plausible...

 

[KageKamen]

I am all for using high technology, but its not as much fun as the old fashioned ways.

Fun is all well and good, but security is paramount. Can't have slaves escaping or anything.

 

[connoisseurs]

Under President Crump, my idea is that Justices become really fundamentalist. Since the Founding Fathers did not think whippings, brandings, and pilloryings (?) were cruel and unusual, we shouldn't either, and it's fine if they're re-instituted.

Hey! Caution! Don´t make me like that guy! Oh, you wrote about President Crump. Sorry.

 

[Loxuru]

I guess by the 1950's whippings were considered sufficiently "Unusual" that they no longer passed the "Cruel and Unusual" bar to punishment in the eighth amendment. As society evolves, many practices in law that would have been commonplace are now considered "Cruel and Unusual

There is a strange explanation why judicial corporal punishment has gone out of use in the US. The Wikipedia page :

Judicial corporal punishment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is mentioned :

'One of the major objections to judicial corporal punishment in the United States was that it was unpleasant to administer.'

Which I interpret that it was rather based on a concern on well-being for judicial agents than for condemned.

 

[connoisseurs]

'One of the major objections to judicial corporal punishment in the United States was that it was unpleasant to administer.'

Only because they had no Barb to punish

 

[Loxuru]

Only because they had no Barb to punish

Really? Would you find it pleasant to punish someone who is complaining all the time?

 

[twonines]

Really? Would you find it pleasant to punish someone who is complaining all the time?

If necessary, you could always use a ball gag or if push comes to shove her kinis.

 

[Jon Smithie]

There is a strange explanation why judicial corporal punishment has gone out of use in the US. The Wikipedia page :

Judicial corporal punishment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is mentioned :

'One of the major objections to judicial corporal punishment in the United States was that it was unpleasant to administer.'

Which I interpret that it was rather based on a concern on well-being for judicial agents than for condemned.

So administering judicial corporal punishments would not be the dream job I imagine? But what if one could specify the job site--say at a women's prison that only admitted physically attractive female criminals--like in every WIP movie I've ever seen? Did Wikipedia consider that scenario?

 

[twonines]

So administering judicial corporal punishments would not be the dream job I imagine? But what if one could specify the job site--say at a women's prison that only admitted physically attractive female criminals--like in every WIP movie I've ever seen? Did Wikipedia consider that scenario?

The secret of happiness, find an activity you enjoy and get someone to pay you do it. Administering corporal punishment to young women with the characteristics of supermodels a la Barb,Eul and Kathy would be a dream job, but don`t forget that there are other possibilities, we have our own FSG and Roberta, ladies of more ample proportions ,but both very interesting and charming characters. I am sure putting them through their paces would be enjoyable!

 

[connoisseurs]

Really? Would you find it pleasant to punish someone who is complaining all the time?

You bet!

 

[Eulalia]

As far as I found out, corporal punishment is not unconstitutional in the US. The last public flogging was given in 1952, it seems. Flogging was very common in US prisons during the 19th century as a measure of discipline.

The last place in Europe to cease using judicial corporal punishment was in the British Isles -
the Isle of Man, a Crown Dependency, not part of the United Kingdom, in 1981 -
formally, the law authorising men and boys to be birched has never been repealed
by the House of Keys, the legislature of the IoM, they simply gave a solemn assurance
to the UK Government that they would stop implementing it,
in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights,
to which the UK is a signatory, though the IoM is not.
If the UK withdraws from that Convention after Brexit ,
as leading figures now in the UK Government have proposed,
that undertaking may no longer apply ...

 

[Loxuru]

The last place in Europe to cease using judicial corporal punishment was in the British Isles -
the Isle of Man, a Crown Dependency, not part of the United Kingdom, in 1981 -
formally, the law authorising men and boys to be birched has never been repealed
by the House of Keys, the legislature of the IoM, they simply gave a solemn assurance
to the UK Government that they would stop implementing it,
in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights,
to which the UK is a signatory, though the IoM is not.
If the UK withdraws from that Convention after Brexit ,
as leading figures now in the UK Government have proposed,
that undertaking may no longer apply ...

The European Convention on Human Rights is drafted by the Council of Europe, which is a completely different organisation than the European Union, from which the UK is about to retire. There is on the other hand the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is a derivate from the Convention, and which is indeed EU matter.

Since IoM is neither part of the UK nor of the EU, I suppose the stop of implementation of corporal punishment on IoM is based on the Convention, not the Charter?

If the UK would envisage to abandon the Convention after Brexit, I suspect Whitehall has plans to become a rogue state?

 

[twonines]

The European Convention on Human Rights is drafted by the Council of Europe, which is a completely different organisation than the European Union, from which the UK is about to retire. There is on the other hand the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is a derivate from the Convention, and which is indeed EU matter.

Since IoM is neither part of the UK nor of the EU, I suppose the stop of implementation of corporal punishment on IoM is based on the Convention, not the Charter?

If the UK would envisage to abandon the Convention after Brexit, I suspect Whitehall has plans to become a rogue state?

No just an independent sovereign state.

 

[Eulalia]

The European Convention on Human Rights is drafted by the Council of Europe, which is a completely different organisation than the European Union, from which the UK is about to retire.

Indeed, though being signatory to the Convention is a condition of membership of the EU.

 

[Jon Smithie]

The last place in Europe to cease using judicial corporal punishment was in the British Isles -
the Isle of Man, a Crown Dependency, not part of the United Kingdom, in 1981 -
formally, the law authorising men and boys to be birched has never been repealed
by the House of Keys, the legislature of the IoM, they simply gave a solemn assurance
to the UK Government that they would stop implementing it,
in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights,
to which the UK is a signatory, though the IoM is not.
If the UK withdraws from that Convention after Brexit ,
as leading figures now in the UK Government have proposed,
that undertaking may no longer apply ...

I've read a few pretty good stories involving women being birched while committing some sort of legal pecadillo on the Isle of Man. According to the stories IoM CP was performed with the birch rod. I'll see if I can find the stories and link to them.

 

[windar]

formally, the law authorising men and boys to be birched has never been repealed

That is gross sexism! Totally unfair!!!