It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Char-Lee
Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
forcing someone to do community service is a way of giving back to the community and the tax payers and is not public humiliation.
forcing someone to stand around in public wearing a sign that says idiot is blatantly meant to be humiliating
what dont ya'll get about that?
I am surprised "Ya'll""don't" see that cleaning public restrooms and picking up garbage and such is humiliating also, besides being work, which prisoners are not allowed to be forced to work, especially in your own town where everyone knows you.
You didn't answer my question by Phage did so guess it is not against the constitution.
Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
You have not made any point that refutes the point I am making. You are offering a perspective that works for your arguement
there was no real point being made so I ignored it
Originally posted by Obnoxiouschick
Do you think she thinks she's an idiot?
She probably thinks she's smart as hell that's why she was laughing.
Thinking she got caught once but got away with it many more times.
Seriously she's probably very narcissistic and truly doesn't think of herself as an "idiot"
It would be embarrassing/ humiliating if it was true. She doesn't think she's an idiot so the level of humiliation drops a few notches.
lawblog.legalmatch.com...
But even if you grant that public humiliation is effective, there’s the question of whether or not it’s constitutional. The 8th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from imposing “cruel and unusual punishment.” However, as with many other important terms in the Constitution (such as “due process of law,” “unreasonable search and seizure,” and “free exercise of religion”), the text of the Constitution doesn’t bother to define the term. This was probably deliberate, as it gives courts leeway to adapt constitutional principles to evolving societal standards.
www.law2.byu.edu...
The Ninth Circuit upheld the punishment imposed by the district court stating that the sentence “reasonably related to the legitimate statutory objective of rehabilitation.”62 In justifying its decision, the court further reasoned that “the district court outlined a sensible logic underlying its conclusion”63 and included “reintegrative provisions.”64 The Ninth Circuit also determined that the probation condition failed to infringe on Gementera’s Eighth Amendment rights. The court noted that Gementera “offered no evidence whatsoever . . . that shaming sanctions violate contemporary standards of decency.”65
forcing someone to do community service is a way of giving back to the community and the tax payers and is not public humiliation.
forcing someone to stand around in public wearing a sign that says idiot is blatantly meant to be humiliating
what dont ya'll get about that?
Originally posted by My_Reality
How wonderfully idiotic. For the government. God forbid a person exercises some personal discretion. Yet another victimless crime blown into epic proportion. Did a child get physically hurt? Did the woman hit any private property?
Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
Originally posted by TDawgRex
Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
When did I say anything about that law (besides the 8th amendment)? This whole thread is about the violation of the 8th amendment
Please tell me again and again and again how her 8th amendment rights were violated?
SHE choose the sentence.
Your interpretation is just to loose.
Using your own interpretation no one would go to jail, or be sentenced to community service or fined...because that would possibly embarrass them.
Her rights were not violated in any means, way or form.
I'm starting to think that this thread is actually about something else.
How is that the same.
The judge put this woman on the streets and in front of millions of people wearing an idiot sign.
the two are obviously not the same
how many counts of reckless endangerment, reckless driving, and driving through a bus stop did this woman rack up. she should be charged in accordance with the law not by the whim of a judge that obviously has an agenda and is using stuff like this to get public opinion to work away at our rights