This week we are going to bust the myth of cruel and unusual punishment. (CUP). First the definition:

.........................

Oh wait a minute, actually, there is no such a definition! CUP is like the yeti, everybody talks about it, but nobody ever seen one. Let's look it up in the Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment

Well, the Wiki happens to agree with me:

"What these words mean in practice is the subject of much legal argument."

Alrighty, then let's look at the words themselves. What is considered to be cruel is relative, and something unusualness only depends on how much we get used to it. Once we use it quite often, it becomes usual.

See? Once we analized the problem, we realize that the expression is bullshit and a missnomer.Wiki also agrees:

"In general the interpretation of each of the two words is in keeping with the basic legal maxim that the "punishment should fit the crime".

OK, then why don't we just call it like that?? Unfair punishment or something...

"The term "cruel" is necessarily flexible according to the circumstances, since all punishments are inherently cruel to some greater or lesser degree. The "unusual" provision has proven easier to interpret: providing that persons will not be subjected to arbitrary, humorous, or capricious punishment outside the normal course of the law (for example, tarring and feathering). Another way to make the punishment usual is to simply use it more often."

Hey, I already said that. OK, I could talk more, but you already got my drift. Just remember, life is full of bullshit, you have to keep a clean nose to be able to notice it...

P.S.: They should call it unfair punishment, instead of CUP, but that is also subjective and relative, and that was the point of this post...

Yes, it's subjective, which is why they don't create a definition. But you can rule on a specific type of punishment. Jail isn't deliberately designed to inflict pain, but keep people away from society, and if possible make criminals into better citizens. The death penalty is designed to kill people, not inflict pain extraneous to the act of killing.

The correct term would have been excessive or unfair punishment, which is pretty much the same and still very subjective.

The funny thing is that the term is even in the Constitution, but nobody really dared to ask, just what the hell do you mean by it?

There are lots of terms in the constitution like that. "Well-regulated militia", for instance.

Should we implement the death penalty, then, for people who violate the speed limit, or fail to activate their turn signal when rounding a corner or changing lanes? Mass executions of pot smokers?

Here's a job description you might see sometime abroad, but not in the Unites States:

HELP WANTED — Civil Servant Senior Grade IV, Professional Spanker. Self-starter needed to show initiative in program performance. Good teamwork and communication skills preferred. Track record as state-owned thug a plus; department will train if needed. HS diploma required; must show State Certification as Level 1 Spanking Technician and demonstrate proficiency with whip and cane.

So who do we beat publicly? The wife-beaters? The vandals? Is a $2,000 fine enough for public spitting, or should it be a fine and twenty whacks on the ass?

And, hey, we could call on our Puritan historical precedent in order to deal with uppity women. It wasn't so unusual in early Massachusetts for sassy women to be stripped to the waist and then hauled around town in the back of a horsecart—in the middle of winter—for the public to abuse and demean.

You know, legend says that Einstein was once kicked out of class for smiling. Apparently, he undermined the teacher's dignity and authority by doing so. And then the guy went on to be a pacifist who redefined our view of the Universe and also laid the groundwork for a new spectre of death and terror, the atomic bomb. Imagine if his school hadn't been so damnably liberal. Maybe a couple of good smacks to the mouth would have put Einstein in his place, and we could have been spared the whole "relativity" bullshit that has been nothing but the degradation of human goodness ever since.

This week we are going to bust the myth of cruel and unusual punishment. (CUP). First the definition:

.........................

Oh wait a minute, actually, there is no such a definition! CUP is like the yeti, everybody talks about it, but nobody ever seen one. Let's look it up in the Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment

Well, the Wiki happens to agree with me:

"What these words mean in practice is the subject of much legal argument."

Alrighty, then let's look at the words themselves. What is considered to be cruel is relative, and something unusualness only depends on how much we get used to it. Once we use it quite often, it becomes usual.

See? Once we analized the problem, we realize that the expression is bullshit and a missnomer.Wiki also agrees:

"In general the interpretation of each of the two words is in keeping with the basic legal maxim that the "punishment should fit the crime".

OK, then why don't we just call it like that?? Unfair punishment or something...

"The term "cruel" is necessarily flexible according to the circumstances, since all punishments are inherently cruel to some greater or lesser degree. The "unusual" provision has proven easier to interpret: providing that persons will not be subjected to arbitrary, humorous, or capricious punishment outside the normal course of the law (for example, tarring and feathering). Another way to make the punishment usual is to simply use it more often."

Hey, I already said that. OK, I could talk more, but you already got my drift. Just remember, life is full of bullshit, you have to keep a clean nose to be able to notice it...

P.S.: They should call it unfair punishment, instead of CUP, but that is also subjective and relative, and that was the point of this post...

Note that it's not cruel OR unusual punishment, but cruel AND unusual. So you can have cruel punishment (hanging) if it's not unusual (punishment for murder). You're reading it literally with a 21st century lexicon. In other words, ur doin it wrong.

So cruel but usual was OK by the founding fathers?? My point was that cruel is a relative and undefinable term.

Locking a person away in solitary confinement in a cell 8 feet wide by 10 feet long would be cruel and unusual punishment to me but just injecting a convicted murderer with a lethal injection wouldn't be.

I agree, on the cruel part (and this brings up the what is more cruel issue) but it wouldn't be unusal, since it is being used quite often...