Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
It's not the meaning of the word "and" that requires interpretation, it's the meaning of the words "cruel" and "unusual".
Dwellars please follow: according to Radar's "no interpretation necessary" understanding of the US Constitution, having a wild animal chew off a prisoner's genitals is not "cruel and unusual".
There's no stronger case for the need for court interpretation, instead of Radar non-interpretation. Luckily the framers left the job of interpretation up to the courts instead of just assuming we'd all understand what it says.
|
The framers gave the courts no such "interpretation" powers in the Constitution. Also, having a wild animal chew off a prisoner's genitals is very cruel, but if applied widely to a lot of people it's not unusual. Therefore it's not cruel AND unusual.
There are many who would agree that this is an appropriate form of punishment for child molesters.