Mona LSR coercion was: New here

[Guest guest]

Well I am sure Satan wouldnt turn you down for a mistress but apt from that, you *do* believe in the legitimacy of coercion to *** LSR **** by bothe courts and employers, it seems. You dont't want it, but you believe it acceptable, legally anfd it would seem ethically, and that I think is worthy of challenge.

It is legal. I didn't say acceptable -- I said it is LEGAL. Coercing criminals is LEGAL. For kee-rist sake, Pete, prison is kinda coercion writ large. (Have I freakin entered an alternate universe here?) Penal codes are first, middle and last about COERCION. DUHHHHHH!

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

But as we have seen, that doesnt give the right to coerce to AA. There are LIMITS on what the State can do still, even if your "ass is theirs".

Yes, but the ONLY reason the state cannot coerce AA is because doing so violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.

Coercing criminals to attend SMART, LSR, RR, or the Rotary Club is fine, because there is no First Amendment violation in doing so. BUT FOR the First Amendment, Warner would not have been decided as it was. UNLESS DOING SO CONTRAVENES the First Amendment (and 8th), the state can coerce criminals.

Courts are not prohibiting coerced AA attendance because they think AA sucks. They are prohibiting it for First Amendment reasons. Take away those reasons, and coerced AA would be legal.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

But as we have seen, that doesnt give the right to coerce to AA. There are LIMITS on what the State can do still, even if your "ass is theirs".

Yes, but the ONLY reason the state cannot coerce AA is because doing so violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.

Coercing criminals to attend SMART, LSR, RR, or the Rotary Club is fine, because there is no First Amendment violation in doing so. BUT FOR the First Amendment, Warner would not have been decided as it was. UNLESS DOING SO CONTRAVENES the First Amendment (and 8th), the state can coerce criminals.

Courts are not prohibiting coerced AA attendance because they think AA sucks. They are prohibiting it for First Amendment reasons. Take away those reasons, and coerced AA would be legal.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

> This gets a little

> ridiculous, fighting a bunch of ignorant and vicious Steppers in

>several

> About fora, who think I'm Satan's mistress, and then to find here I

> am...Satan's mistress. I belong to " AA without god " and beleive in

>coercion.

Well I am sure Satan wouldnt turn you down for a mistress but apt from

that, you *do* believe in the legitimacy of coercion to *** LSR ****

by bothe courts and employers, it seems. You dont't want it, but you

believe it acceptable, legally anfd it would seem ethically, and that

I think is worthy of challenge.

> It is simply mind-boggling to me that Ken

believes

> LSR is no better than AA simply because I acknowledge, as a matter

of current

> public policy, that the state properly coerces convicted criminals

during the

> length of their sentences. Doesn't mean I think the state SHOULD

coerce them

> into recovery meetings (I don't want involuntary people at an LSR

meeting),

> but it certainly MAY.

But until the heroic challenges to AA coercion that were made, that

held true for coercion to AA as well, and the battle to avoid that is

still very much raging. Those who support it use exactly the same

argument you do, usually without the final sentence at the end. That

state of affairs is changing by legal challenge , and folks are

fighting for that. In the same way LSR coercion could also change.

Noe you cold be right legally, and morally, about the situation, but

you may also not be, and that is what folks includinme want to

challenge, and iwill do with my " heavy shells " as soon as I've got

through all these " It's about you " e-turds.

P.

>

> As for a situation like Rita's, yes, an employer may coerce

non-relgious

> activity as a condition of employment. I am disgusted at random

drug testing

> by employers, but only the most far-fetched constitutional arguments

would

> prohibit it. The fact is, if an employer wants to make you jump up

and down

> and sing " Yes, We Have No Bananas " every morning when you arrive at

work,

> s/he may do so. S/he can also require you to call in from home and

sing it

> into the telephone on your own time.

>

> Private employers have a right to be tyrants and bullies. Workers

have the

> right to quit, or to form unions and oppose them. But the law

cannot -- and

> should not -- directly prohibit petty employer tyranny. If that

makes me

> akin to AA, I'll have to live with it.

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 8/8/01 8:35:58 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> watts_pete@... writes:

>

>

> > Well I am sure Satan wouldnt turn you down for a mistress but apt from

> > that, you *do* believe in the legitimacy of coercion to *** LSR ****

> > by bothe courts and employers, it seems. You dont't want it, but you

> > believe it acceptable, legally anfd it would seem ethically, and that

> > I think is worthy of challenge.

> >

>

> It is legal. I didn't say acceptable -- I said it is LEGAL. Coercing

> criminals is LEGAL. For kee-rist sake, Pete, prison is kinda coercion

writ

> large. (Have I freakin entered an alternate universe here?) Penal codes

are

> first, middle and last about COERCION. DUHHHHHH!

>

> --Mona--

Yes, you have entered an alternative universe, Mona.

The Beloved Leader obviously doesn't get this simple distinction. Whether

that lack of insight has spread like a staph infection on this issue or

what, I don't know.

got it, clearly got it. Excellent post. But her grasping it

seems to be a definite minority. My god, we started talking about this 10

days ago.

Steve

[Guest guest]

> It is legal. I didn't say acceptable -- I said it is LEGAL.

Coercing

> criminals is LEGAL. For kee-rist sake, Pete, prison is kinda

coercion writ

> large. (Have I freakin entered an alternate universe here?) Penal

codes are

> first, middle and last about COERCION. DUHHHHHH!

Ah yes,

But as we have seen, that doesnt give the right to coerce to AA. There

are LIMITS on what the State can do still, even if your " ass is

theirs " . Having left it till 3:30 am I am not at my best to blow the

whistle for the great push over the top (Cryss, I'm beginning to sound

more like Floyd Garrett every day) but I can't play coy on this any

longer, and the issues are very important. Being knackered, I'll have

to be brief.

Remember the case of the ACLU lawyer who fought a case against AA

coercion and on her deathbed confessed she was an AA herself?

(As an important aside, let's all remember this case when dismissing

as paranoia that any legal result might be affected by any particular

lawyer, juror, or judge being a stepper. Remember the pod ppl look

just like the rest of us, folks!) (Joke, not paranoia.)

I'm not saying she did a bad job deliberately because she's an AA,

even though she lost, but it is interesting that she obviously thought

it something worth talking about before the great

inventory-taking-in-the-sky with my namesake. However, it is worth

noting that he didnt base her argument on AA being religious, an

agument that has actually succeeded as we know. (For that reason

incidentally pall bearing is presumably also out, unless the dead

folks are all having secular funerals). What she based her argument

on was, appparently according to Rita, also based on freedom of faith

however, the question of whether the State has a right to insist a

person think of themself as an alcoholic. That apparently is also a

violation of the religious freedom bit of the First Amendment. Ok the

case was lost, (anyone know why?) but the principle remains, and hence

perforce, this objection could also apply to even a completely secular

group, as the religiosity of the group isnt involved. Hence, court

coercion to LSR or another secular group could esily be

unconstitutional by this principle. I'm not saying it is, I'm saying

it could be. While not covering institutions connected to the State,

religious anti-discrimination laws could also make it still apply to

employer or other coercion.

There is a bigger bugbear. Steve says there's no reason why the State

shouldn't coerce abstinence. Apart from the issue of whether this

jutifiable scientifically (in terms of effectiveness at stopping

alcohol-related crimes) and apparently it doesnt actually happen often

because of the difficulty of enforcing it, so you have the novel

situation that a guy can be coerced to AA while retaining the right to

get as drunk as a lord, this ought not be true either, because alcohol

consumption is frequently a religious ritual. As well as Xtian

communion, there are Jewish rituals involving alcohol and apparently

you're specifically supposed to get tipsy on a particular day of the

year. Hence even a coercion to have a BAL fit for driving should be a

no no providing you don't actually drive of course. Hence, a coercion

to abstinence, and hence perforce an organization promoting

abstinence, can also be a violation of the First Amendment.

Ok, time for me to take cover....

P.

[Guest guest]

> It is legal. I didn't say acceptable -- I said it is LEGAL.

Coercing

> criminals is LEGAL. For kee-rist sake, Pete, prison is kinda

coercion writ

> large. (Have I freakin entered an alternate universe here?) Penal

codes are

> first, middle and last about COERCION. DUHHHHHH!

Ah yes,

But as we have seen, that doesnt give the right to coerce to AA. There

are LIMITS on what the State can do still, even if your " ass is

theirs " . Having left it till 3:30 am I am not at my best to blow the

whistle for the great push over the top (Cryss, I'm beginning to sound

more like Floyd Garrett every day) but I can't play coy on this any

longer, and the issues are very important. Being knackered, I'll have

to be brief.

Remember the case of the ACLU lawyer who fought a case against AA

coercion and on her deathbed confessed she was an AA herself?

(As an important aside, let's all remember this case when dismissing

as paranoia that any legal result might be affected by any particular

lawyer, juror, or judge being a stepper. Remember the pod ppl look

just like the rest of us, folks!) (Joke, not paranoia.)

I'm not saying she did a bad job deliberately because she's an AA,

even though she lost, but it is interesting that she obviously thought

it something worth talking about before the great

inventory-taking-in-the-sky with my namesake. However, it is worth

noting that he didnt base her argument on AA being religious, an

agument that has actually succeeded as we know. (For that reason

incidentally pall bearing is presumably also out, unless the dead

folks are all having secular funerals). What she based her argument

on was, appparently according to Rita, also based on freedom of faith

however, the question of whether the State has a right to insist a

person think of themself as an alcoholic. That apparently is also a

violation of the religious freedom bit of the First Amendment. Ok the

case was lost, (anyone know why?) but the principle remains, and hence

perforce, this objection could also apply to even a completely secular

group, as the religiosity of the group isnt involved. Hence, court

coercion to LSR or another secular group could esily be

unconstitutional by this principle. I'm not saying it is, I'm saying

it could be. While not covering institutions connected to the State,

religious anti-discrimination laws could also make it still apply to

employer or other coercion.

There is a bigger bugbear. Steve says there's no reason why the State

shouldn't coerce abstinence. Apart from the issue of whether this

jutifiable scientifically (in terms of effectiveness at stopping

alcohol-related crimes) and apparently it doesnt actually happen often

because of the difficulty of enforcing it, so you have the novel

situation that a guy can be coerced to AA while retaining the right to

get as drunk as a lord, this ought not be true either, because alcohol

consumption is frequently a religious ritual. As well as Xtian

communion, there are Jewish rituals involving alcohol and apparently

you're specifically supposed to get tipsy on a particular day of the

year. Hence even a coercion to have a BAL fit for driving should be a

no no providing you don't actually drive of course. Hence, a coercion

to abstinence, and hence perforce an organization promoting

abstinence, can also be a violation of the First Amendment.

Ok, time for me to take cover....

P.

[Guest guest]

> It is legal. I didn't say acceptable -- I said it is LEGAL.

Coercing

> criminals is LEGAL. For kee-rist sake, Pete, prison is kinda

coercion writ

> large. (Have I freakin entered an alternate universe here?) Penal

codes are

> first, middle and last about COERCION. DUHHHHHH!

Ah yes,

But as we have seen, that doesnt give the right to coerce to AA. There

are LIMITS on what the State can do still, even if your " ass is

theirs " . Having left it till 3:30 am I am not at my best to blow the

whistle for the great push over the top (Cryss, I'm beginning to sound

more like Floyd Garrett every day) but I can't play coy on this any

longer, and the issues are very important. Being knackered, I'll have

to be brief.

Remember the case of the ACLU lawyer who fought a case against AA

coercion and on her deathbed confessed she was an AA herself?

(As an important aside, let's all remember this case when dismissing

as paranoia that any legal result might be affected by any particular

lawyer, juror, or judge being a stepper. Remember the pod ppl look

just like the rest of us, folks!) (Joke, not paranoia.)

I'm not saying she did a bad job deliberately because she's an AA,

even though she lost, but it is interesting that she obviously thought

it something worth talking about before the great

inventory-taking-in-the-sky with my namesake. However, it is worth

noting that he didnt base her argument on AA being religious, an

agument that has actually succeeded as we know. (For that reason

incidentally pall bearing is presumably also out, unless the dead

folks are all having secular funerals). What she based her argument

on was, appparently according to Rita, also based on freedom of faith

however, the question of whether the State has a right to insist a

person think of themself as an alcoholic. That apparently is also a

violation of the religious freedom bit of the First Amendment. Ok the

case was lost, (anyone know why?) but the principle remains, and hence

perforce, this objection could also apply to even a completely secular

group, as the religiosity of the group isnt involved. Hence, court

coercion to LSR or another secular group could esily be

unconstitutional by this principle. I'm not saying it is, I'm saying

it could be. While not covering institutions connected to the State,

religious anti-discrimination laws could also make it still apply to

employer or other coercion.

There is a bigger bugbear. Steve says there's no reason why the State

shouldn't coerce abstinence. Apart from the issue of whether this

jutifiable scientifically (in terms of effectiveness at stopping

alcohol-related crimes) and apparently it doesnt actually happen often

because of the difficulty of enforcing it, so you have the novel

situation that a guy can be coerced to AA while retaining the right to

get as drunk as a lord, this ought not be true either, because alcohol

consumption is frequently a religious ritual. As well as Xtian

communion, there are Jewish rituals involving alcohol and apparently

you're specifically supposed to get tipsy on a particular day of the

year. Hence even a coercion to have a BAL fit for driving should be a

no no providing you don't actually drive of course. Hence, a coercion

to abstinence, and hence perforce an organization promoting

abstinence, can also be a violation of the First Amendment.

Ok, time for me to take cover....

P.

[Guest guest]

> Yes, you have entered an alternative universe, Mona.

> The Beloved Leader obviously doesn't get this simple distinction.

One Nazi joke is funny Steve; two looks a bit like churlishness.

Incidentally, which leader were you talking about? If you meant me,

then you will see the flaw in your logic which I have now addressed.

I might not be right, but I aint stupid. Patience is a virtue and all

that.

>Whether

> that lack of insight has spread like a staph infection on this issue

>or

> what, I don't know.

> got it, clearly got it. Excellent post. But her

>grasping it

> seems to be a definite minority. My god, we started talking about

>this 10

> days ago.

however, hadnt seen my riposte. Well now it's there in whatever

colors your display uses. No lack of insight my side Steve - just

taking it a bit further. Now, do you have the insight to " get it " as

to why your argument is not conclusive?

P.

[Guest guest]

> Yes, you have entered an alternative universe, Mona.

> The Beloved Leader obviously doesn't get this simple distinction.

One Nazi joke is funny Steve; two looks a bit like churlishness.

Incidentally, which leader were you talking about? If you meant me,

then you will see the flaw in your logic which I have now addressed.

I might not be right, but I aint stupid. Patience is a virtue and all

that.

>Whether

> that lack of insight has spread like a staph infection on this issue

>or

> what, I don't know.

> got it, clearly got it. Excellent post. But her

>grasping it

> seems to be a definite minority. My god, we started talking about

>this 10

> days ago.

however, hadnt seen my riposte. Well now it's there in whatever

colors your display uses. No lack of insight my side Steve - just

taking it a bit further. Now, do you have the insight to " get it " as

to why your argument is not conclusive?

P.

[Guest guest]

> Yes, you have entered an alternative universe, Mona.

> The Beloved Leader obviously doesn't get this simple distinction.

One Nazi joke is funny Steve; two looks a bit like churlishness.

Incidentally, which leader were you talking about? If you meant me,

then you will see the flaw in your logic which I have now addressed.

I might not be right, but I aint stupid. Patience is a virtue and all

that.

>Whether

> that lack of insight has spread like a staph infection on this issue

>or

> what, I don't know.

> got it, clearly got it. Excellent post. But her

>grasping it

> seems to be a definite minority. My god, we started talking about

>this 10

> days ago.

however, hadnt seen my riposte. Well now it's there in whatever

colors your display uses. No lack of insight my side Steve - just

taking it a bit further. Now, do you have the insight to " get it " as

to why your argument is not conclusive?

P.

[Guest guest]

At 10:22 PM 8/8/01 EDT, MonaHolland1@... wrote:

>It is legal. I didn't say acceptable -- I said it is LEGAL. Coercing

>criminals is LEGAL. For kee-rist sake, Pete, prison is kinda coercion writ

>large. (Have I freakin entered an alternate universe here?) Penal codes

are

>first, middle and last about COERCION. DUHHHHHH!

I was of the understanding that there are limits to what a judge

could do. If a first offence of jaywalking (to use an example for all

those who have read the big book and are powerless over their jaywalking)

carries a sentence of 30 to 90 days in jail (just making up some numbers

here), then can a judge sentence a first-time jaywalker to five years in

prison?

>--Mona--

----------

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

At 10:22 PM 8/8/01 EDT, MonaHolland1@... wrote:

>It is legal. I didn't say acceptable -- I said it is LEGAL. Coercing

>criminals is LEGAL. For kee-rist sake, Pete, prison is kinda coercion writ

>large. (Have I freakin entered an alternate universe here?) Penal codes

are

>first, middle and last about COERCION. DUHHHHHH!

I was of the understanding that there are limits to what a judge

could do. If a first offence of jaywalking (to use an example for all

those who have read the big book and are powerless over their jaywalking)

carries a sentence of 30 to 90 days in jail (just making up some numbers

here), then can a judge sentence a first-time jaywalker to five years in

prison?

>--Mona--

----------

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

At 10:22 PM 8/8/01 EDT, MonaHolland1@... wrote:

>It is legal. I didn't say acceptable -- I said it is LEGAL. Coercing

>criminals is LEGAL. For kee-rist sake, Pete, prison is kinda coercion writ

>large. (Have I freakin entered an alternate universe here?) Penal codes

are

>first, middle and last about COERCION. DUHHHHHH!

I was of the understanding that there are limits to what a judge

could do. If a first offence of jaywalking (to use an example for all

those who have read the big book and are powerless over their jaywalking)

carries a sentence of 30 to 90 days in jail (just making up some numbers

here), then can a judge sentence a first-time jaywalker to five years in

prison?

>--Mona--

----------

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

> I was of the understanding that there are limits to what a judge

>could do. If a first offence of jaywalking (to use an example for all

>those who have read the big book and are powerless over their jaywalking)

>carries a sentence of 30 to 90 days in jail (just making up some numbers

>here), then can a judge sentence a first-time jaywalker to five years in

>prison?

NO! That's excluded by the Eight Amdt (no cruel and unusual punishments), as

I have noted in more than one previous post on this list.

More DOOHH

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

> I was of the understanding that there are limits to what a judge

>could do. If a first offence of jaywalking (to use an example for all

>those who have read the big book and are powerless over their jaywalking)

>carries a sentence of 30 to 90 days in jail (just making up some numbers

>here), then can a judge sentence a first-time jaywalker to five years in

>prison?

NO! That's excluded by the Eight Amdt (no cruel and unusual punishments), as

I have noted in more than one previous post on this list.

More DOOHH

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

> I was of the understanding that there are limits to what a judge

>could do. If a first offence of jaywalking (to use an example for all

>those who have read the big book and are powerless over their jaywalking)

>carries a sentence of 30 to 90 days in jail (just making up some numbers

>here), then can a judge sentence a first-time jaywalker to five years in

>prison?

NO! That's excluded by the Eight Amdt (no cruel and unusual punishments), as

I have noted in more than one previous post on this list.

More DOOHH

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Hi Ben,

My anecdotal 2 cents on this one...followed by a rant.

Recently, they had a " sting " in my town for not stopping for

pedestrians crossing at a walk that was clearly marked and crossed a

highway with 2 lanes on each side and a traffic island in the middle.

My friend stopped for the pedestrians (hired by the Feds), and when

they reached the middle island and had crossed his path, he went.

Well, he got a $175.00 fine for it, because apparently he was supposed

to wait until the pedestrians crossed the other two lanes of traffic

coming in the other direction as well. When he went to traffic court

over it, they said that they had noted his objections and " didn't know

the answer " and would write him a letter with their decision. FCS!!

(For Christ's Sake!)

This is called selective enforcement. This is what the WOD is *all

about* and why it is so racist. These " crimes " aren't crimes unless

they're made into crimes. And they're looking for the " criminals " in

certain places. At the same time, prohibition creates the opportunity

for people to make big money on illegal drugs. A shot of herion that

costs $100.00 on the street can be distributed for $6.00 if there were

a legal market. (According to my former Soc teacher, but I haven't

found exacting corraborative statements...still, it would be much

cheaper).

IMHO, the legal system should get the hell out of people's private

drug hells and stick to crimes against people that the people who have

been victimized agree are crimes instead of consensual crimes.

Assault, Robbery, Rape, Murder. Even Burglary. To hell with " drug "

crimes and prostitution.

I was of the understanding that there are limits to what a judge

> could do. If a first offence of jaywalking (to use an example for

all

> those who have read the big book and are powerless over their

jaywalking)

> carries a sentence of 30 to 90 days in jail (just making up some

numbers

> here), then can a judge sentence a first-time jaywalker to five

years in

> prison?

>

> >--Mona--

> ----------

> http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

Hi Ben,

My anecdotal 2 cents on this one...followed by a rant.

Recently, they had a " sting " in my town for not stopping for

pedestrians crossing at a walk that was clearly marked and crossed a

highway with 2 lanes on each side and a traffic island in the middle.

My friend stopped for the pedestrians (hired by the Feds), and when

they reached the middle island and had crossed his path, he went.

Well, he got a $175.00 fine for it, because apparently he was supposed

to wait until the pedestrians crossed the other two lanes of traffic

coming in the other direction as well. When he went to traffic court

over it, they said that they had noted his objections and " didn't know

the answer " and would write him a letter with their decision. FCS!!

(For Christ's Sake!)

This is called selective enforcement. This is what the WOD is *all

about* and why it is so racist. These " crimes " aren't crimes unless

they're made into crimes. And they're looking for the " criminals " in

certain places. At the same time, prohibition creates the opportunity

for people to make big money on illegal drugs. A shot of herion that

costs $100.00 on the street can be distributed for $6.00 if there were

a legal market. (According to my former Soc teacher, but I haven't

found exacting corraborative statements...still, it would be much

cheaper).

IMHO, the legal system should get the hell out of people's private

drug hells and stick to crimes against people that the people who have

been victimized agree are crimes instead of consensual crimes.

Assault, Robbery, Rape, Murder. Even Burglary. To hell with " drug "

crimes and prostitution.

I was of the understanding that there are limits to what a judge

> could do. If a first offence of jaywalking (to use an example for

all

> those who have read the big book and are powerless over their

jaywalking)

> carries a sentence of 30 to 90 days in jail (just making up some

numbers

> here), then can a judge sentence a first-time jaywalker to five

years in

> prison?

>

> >--Mona--

> ----------

> http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

Hi Ben,

My anecdotal 2 cents on this one...followed by a rant.

Recently, they had a " sting " in my town for not stopping for

pedestrians crossing at a walk that was clearly marked and crossed a

highway with 2 lanes on each side and a traffic island in the middle.

My friend stopped for the pedestrians (hired by the Feds), and when

they reached the middle island and had crossed his path, he went.

Well, he got a $175.00 fine for it, because apparently he was supposed

to wait until the pedestrians crossed the other two lanes of traffic

coming in the other direction as well. When he went to traffic court

over it, they said that they had noted his objections and " didn't know

the answer " and would write him a letter with their decision. FCS!!

(For Christ's Sake!)

This is called selective enforcement. This is what the WOD is *all

about* and why it is so racist. These " crimes " aren't crimes unless

they're made into crimes. And they're looking for the " criminals " in

certain places. At the same time, prohibition creates the opportunity

for people to make big money on illegal drugs. A shot of herion that

costs $100.00 on the street can be distributed for $6.00 if there were

a legal market. (According to my former Soc teacher, but I haven't

found exacting corraborative statements...still, it would be much

cheaper).

IMHO, the legal system should get the hell out of people's private

drug hells and stick to crimes against people that the people who have

been victimized agree are crimes instead of consensual crimes.

Assault, Robbery, Rape, Murder. Even Burglary. To hell with " drug "

crimes and prostitution.

I was of the understanding that there are limits to what a judge

> could do. If a first offence of jaywalking (to use an example for

all

> those who have read the big book and are powerless over their

jaywalking)

> carries a sentence of 30 to 90 days in jail (just making up some

numbers

> here), then can a judge sentence a first-time jaywalker to five

years in

> prison?

>

> >--Mona--

> ----------

> http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

> IMHO, the legal system should get the hell out of people's private

> drug hells and stick to crimes against people that the people who have

> been victimized agree are crimes instead of consensual crimes.

> Assault, Robbery, Rape, Murder. Even Burglary. To hell with " drug "

> crimes and prostitution.

>

>

Hear Hear! I agree. Read a recent statistic in the local newspaper today.

Number of felons on parole reporting to a certain probation area: 3

burglary, 25 domestic violence, 14 sexual offenders, 2 murder, 327

Druggies. (actually, can't find the paper, but the numbers are close...

single our low double digits for everything except drug related... triple

digits!)

Hmmm... does this represent the populations in the jail/prisons. Betcherass

it does.

[Guest guest]

> IMHO, the legal system should get the hell out of people's private

> drug hells and stick to crimes against people that the people who have

> been victimized agree are crimes instead of consensual crimes.

> Assault, Robbery, Rape, Murder. Even Burglary. To hell with " drug "

> crimes and prostitution.

>

>

Hear Hear! I agree. Read a recent statistic in the local newspaper today.

Number of felons on parole reporting to a certain probation area: 3

burglary, 25 domestic violence, 14 sexual offenders, 2 murder, 327

Druggies. (actually, can't find the paper, but the numbers are close...

single our low double digits for everything except drug related... triple

digits!)

Hmmm... does this represent the populations in the jail/prisons. Betcherass

it does.

[Guest guest]

I was of the understanding that there are limits to what a judge

could do. If a first offence of jaywalking (to use an example for all

those who have read the big book and are powerless over their jaywalking)

carries a sentence of 30 to 90 days in jail (just making up some numbers

here), then can a judge sentence a first-time jaywalker to five years in

prison?

The proportionality issue has been considered by the Supreme Court vis-a-vis the 8th Amendment, and IIRC the jaywalking example is precisely what they pondered. About a decade ago, the Supremes reviewed a mandatory life sentence applied in Michigan for possession of 650 grams or more of cocaine, and upheld the penalty against a challenge that it violated the 8th Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments."

Whether a "disproportionate" sentence may be considered cruel and unusual is a matter of murky precedent, and Scalia would reject completely that it ever is. He rejected the proportionality argument in the Michigan case referenced above.

An annotation at the Supreme Cour's web site states:

>>''Severe, mandatory penalties may be cruel, but they are not unusual in the constitutional sense.'' Id. at 994. The Court's opinion, written by Justice Scalia, then elaborated an understanding of ''unusual''--set forth elsewhere in a part of his opinion subscribed to only by Chief Justice Rehnquist--that denies the possibility of proportionality review altogether. Mandatory penalties are not unusual in the constitutional sense because they have ''been employed in various form throughout our Nation's history.'' This is an application of Justice Scalia's belief that cruelty and unusualness are to be determined solely by reference to the punishment at issue, and without reference to the crime for which it is imposed.<<

It is unclear to whether and to what extent proportionality survives at all as an 8th Amendment argument. While this might shock at first, what the High Court is trying to avoid is a flood of challenges every time a new sentencing scheme is passed by the legislature, state or federal.

To return to the point at hand, anyone arguing that coerced attendance at a non-religious recovery meeting is "cruel and unusual" is going to be laughed out of the courtroom, and the lawyers making the claim might possibly find themselves sanctioned for bringing a frivolous defense or claim.

Probationers and parolees lose a lot of autonomy, and this is entirely legal. They are criminals, after all, whose sentences are not yet expired and/or served. The *could* choose prison, if recovery meetings are so odious to them.

This is not a recovery politics issue, and my views here are based on a proper (uncontroversial) understanding of the law, and of penal policy as reflected in the law.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I was of the understanding that there are limits to what a judge

could do. If a first offence of jaywalking (to use an example for all

those who have read the big book and are powerless over their jaywalking)

carries a sentence of 30 to 90 days in jail (just making up some numbers

here), then can a judge sentence a first-time jaywalker to five years in

prison?

The proportionality issue has been considered by the Supreme Court vis-a-vis the 8th Amendment, and IIRC the jaywalking example is precisely what they pondered. About a decade ago, the Supremes reviewed a mandatory life sentence applied in Michigan for possession of 650 grams or more of cocaine, and upheld the penalty against a challenge that it violated the 8th Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments."

Whether a "disproportionate" sentence may be considered cruel and unusual is a matter of murky precedent, and Scalia would reject completely that it ever is. He rejected the proportionality argument in the Michigan case referenced above.

An annotation at the Supreme Cour's web site states:

>>''Severe, mandatory penalties may be cruel, but they are not unusual in the constitutional sense.'' Id. at 994. The Court's opinion, written by Justice Scalia, then elaborated an understanding of ''unusual''--set forth elsewhere in a part of his opinion subscribed to only by Chief Justice Rehnquist--that denies the possibility of proportionality review altogether. Mandatory penalties are not unusual in the constitutional sense because they have ''been employed in various form throughout our Nation's history.'' This is an application of Justice Scalia's belief that cruelty and unusualness are to be determined solely by reference to the punishment at issue, and without reference to the crime for which it is imposed.<<

It is unclear to whether and to what extent proportionality survives at all as an 8th Amendment argument. While this might shock at first, what the High Court is trying to avoid is a flood of challenges every time a new sentencing scheme is passed by the legislature, state or federal.

To return to the point at hand, anyone arguing that coerced attendance at a non-religious recovery meeting is "cruel and unusual" is going to be laughed out of the courtroom, and the lawyers making the claim might possibly find themselves sanctioned for bringing a frivolous defense or claim.

Probationers and parolees lose a lot of autonomy, and this is entirely legal. They are criminals, after all, whose sentences are not yet expired and/or served. The *could* choose prison, if recovery meetings are so odious to them.

This is not a recovery politics issue, and my views here are based on a proper (uncontroversial) understanding of the law, and of penal policy as reflected in the law.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I was of the understanding that there are limits to what a judge

could do. If a first offence of jaywalking (to use an example for all

those who have read the big book and are powerless over their jaywalking)

carries a sentence of 30 to 90 days in jail (just making up some numbers

here), then can a judge sentence a first-time jaywalker to five years in

prison?

The proportionality issue has been considered by the Supreme Court vis-a-vis the 8th Amendment, and IIRC the jaywalking example is precisely what they pondered. About a decade ago, the Supremes reviewed a mandatory life sentence applied in Michigan for possession of 650 grams or more of cocaine, and upheld the penalty against a challenge that it violated the 8th Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments."

Whether a "disproportionate" sentence may be considered cruel and unusual is a matter of murky precedent, and Scalia would reject completely that it ever is. He rejected the proportionality argument in the Michigan case referenced above.

An annotation at the Supreme Cour's web site states:

>>''Severe, mandatory penalties may be cruel, but they are not unusual in the constitutional sense.'' Id. at 994. The Court's opinion, written by Justice Scalia, then elaborated an understanding of ''unusual''--set forth elsewhere in a part of his opinion subscribed to only by Chief Justice Rehnquist--that denies the possibility of proportionality review altogether. Mandatory penalties are not unusual in the constitutional sense because they have ''been employed in various form throughout our Nation's history.'' This is an application of Justice Scalia's belief that cruelty and unusualness are to be determined solely by reference to the punishment at issue, and without reference to the crime for which it is imposed.<<

It is unclear to whether and to what extent proportionality survives at all as an 8th Amendment argument. While this might shock at first, what the High Court is trying to avoid is a flood of challenges every time a new sentencing scheme is passed by the legislature, state or federal.

To return to the point at hand, anyone arguing that coerced attendance at a non-religious recovery meeting is "cruel and unusual" is going to be laughed out of the courtroom, and the lawyers making the claim might possibly find themselves sanctioned for bringing a frivolous defense or claim.

Probationers and parolees lose a lot of autonomy, and this is entirely legal. They are criminals, after all, whose sentences are not yet expired and/or served. The *could* choose prison, if recovery meetings are so odious to them.

This is not a recovery politics issue, and my views here are based on a proper (uncontroversial) understanding of the law, and of penal policy as reflected in the law.

--Mona--