Posted on 03/07/2010 4:07:02 PM PST by americanophile
Reporting from Washington - According to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a prisoner who was slammed to a concrete floor and punched and kicked by a guard after asking for a grievance form -- but suffered neither serious nor permanent harm -- has no claim that his constitutional rights were violated.
Thomas objected when the high court, in a little-noted recent opinion, said this unprovoked and malicious assault by a North Carolina prison guard amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.
The court's decision came a few days after Thomas' now-famous former law clerk John C. Yoo was charged with flawed reasoning, but not professional misconduct, as a Justice Department lawyer when he applied much the same view toward the treatment of Al Qaeda prisoners.
In the so-called torture memos in 2002, Yoo reasoned that subjecting prisoners to simulated drowning or "stress positions" in cold cells was not illegal torture because it did not cause the intense pain of a serious injury, equivalent to "death or organ failure." Thomas' consistent record of dismissing claims of prison brutality, most of them joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, shows that Yoo's view of torture was not that of a rogue lawyer. Instead, it represents a strain of conservative thinking that looks back in history to define cruelty and torture, rather than toward what the court has called the "evolving standards of decency."
Over two decades, Thomas and Scalia have repeatedly dissented when the court ruled for prisoners who alleged they were subjected to cruelty. They include an inmate who was handcuffed to a "hitching post" and forced to stand shirtless for seven hours in the hot summer sun of Alabama. Another involved an inmate from Louisiana who was repeatedly punched in the mouth by a guard.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Cry me a river.
He was right. The assault was not part of the judicially-ordered punishment, hence this is a separate issue. The man may have grounds for a suit, but not on that basis.
I had no idea the LA Times was still in business.
...haha
...or ordinary criminal assault I should also add.
The left mantra = Constitution, f**k the Constitution
That’s a racist LAT article.........
Bless you Justice Thomas.
YOu stand in the breech between us and the barbarians.
LA Times whining again? =.=
It certainly is not “cruel and unusual punishment” unless it was directed by the court. At worst it is actionable assault by the guard and whatever supervisor put him up to it.
What we don’t want are “evolving” standards as decreed from the bench. If you want a standard to evolve, then legislate it. Social views, moral views may evolve but law must change by design and by by legislative action. Anything else is rule by judges and thats out of order and unconstitutional.
If you don’t like a standard, great. Persuade your fellow citizens and change the law.
And so...the attacks continue on the Court’s Conservative Justices. Who in their right mind truly believes this story is not a ‘plant’....?
They’ve been sold down the river several times ~ but they’re always open for a new master!
You can be charged with "flawed reasoning"???? That's a crime now?
Hmm... Start writing up the articles of impeachment!!!
Not everything that is wrong, immoral or illegal is unconstitutional.
Thomas objected when the high court, in a little-noted recent opinion, said this unprovoked and malicious assault by a North Carolina prison guard amounted to cruel and unusual punishment... Thomas' consistent record of dismissing claims of prison brutality, most of them joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, shows that Yoo's view of torture was not that of a rogue lawyer. Instead, it represents a strain of conservative thinking that looks back in history to define cruelty and torture, rather than toward what the court has called the "evolving standards of decency."Thanks americanophile. The "evolving standards of decency" could someday soon be applied to eating meat, since animals would be the equal of humans, and killing them for our food would be "cruel and unusual punishment." That C&UP refers to the various standard punishments meted out by the Crown for treason (having the entrails pulled out and shown to the still-living victim, for example), and to NOTHING ELSE.
I’d like to hear the other side of the story. Generally guards are the ones who get their butts kicked by inmates.
More often than not. I am not saying that the guard is “at fault” for anything. I am just saying that a little set-to like
that does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment.” C&U is grounds to turn a con loose and would have to be somehow judicially applied or at least be a systematic thing, I would think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.