I believe the intention was to prevent Chicago crime kingpins from retaining control of vast financial empires gained from murder, theft and rapine.
Since we jail the poor and not the rich these days, this does not make sense any more. But the problem is not so much in the policy, as it is the population it’s now being applied to…
What’s next, bill the families of executed for cost of executions?
End the war on drug, start the amnesty, close down most prisons and lets fire some cops!
[quote=“SamSam, post:11, topic:70176, full:true”]
I’m not certain what constitutional argument there is against it, though, I agree. I think “cruel and unusual” wouldn’t fly.
[/quote]How about the Fifth?
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
Sounds like they’re taking private property (money) for public use (jailing prisoners) without just compensation (involuntary imprisonment = compensation? Seriously doubt that will fly.)
And while the Cruel and Unusual aspect of the Eighth may not apply (but I’d argue on that, as well), the rest of the eighth might apply:
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed”
Considering the amounts collected under this sound like they’re often more than the maximum fines related to the conviction, I’d say this is an unconstitutional end-run around the “excessive fines” portion of the Eighth.
There could also be an additional Fifth Amendment double jeopardy claim, since this could be considered sentencing twice for a single crime.
i.e. You’ve been sentenced once to jail + fines, and now the state is attempting to sentence you again for more fines for your previous conviction.
Oh please, you know the only amendment that matters these days is the Second. All the rest were thrown out years ago cause they were too ‘liberal’.
I’m moving to Canada
It thought money was speech.
This has been done, historically.
Even when the King or State didn’t directly bill the executed, in many places and times executioners earned extra money from the families of the executed and by satisfying the desires of gore fans. For example, in England an executioner might be paid to provide a stool to give a hanged man a better drop, or to hire assistants to yank his legs from beneath the platform. If not so paid, the condemned might have to slowly strangle rather than swiftly break the neck, and other persons might well pay to have the execution cruelly prolonged, so there could be a bidding war. In France guillotine operators would sell kerchiefs dipped in the blood of the executed, and so on and so forth.
You’ve got my vote!
Back when The Right was talking about “revolving door prisons”, many of us misunderstood what they had in mind…
Money is speech and speech is free.
Therefore, they can take your money without giving you anything for it.
Also, time is money. It is free, so more peoplecorporations are doing timespeech than ever before.
Seems to me this would violate the 8th amendments excessive fines or even cruel punishment clauses.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
That’s the argument of this:
http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/
And of course, The New Jim Crow:
“It’s always the same and it’s always different”
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
