Revisiting the Constitution: Clarify What's Cruel and Unusual Punishment

By: Rachel E. Barkow 

Assignment #4

"The Constitution has failed to check this pathological process. The Eighth Amendment bans "cruel and unusual punishments." But some justices do not think this bans excessive prison terms. And the requirement that a sentence be "unusual" has meant that the justices often do little more than count up states with similar sentences without looking at how states reached those outcomes".

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/07/08/another-stab-at-the-us-constitution/revisiting-the-constitution-clarify-whats-cruel-and-unusual-punishment

From this quotation I've read from Rachel E. Barkow was the shocking truth. The interoperation I've received is that the eighth amendments in some form have many loopholes that some states are able to get away with. First the eighth amendment reads, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted". Prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishment, this phrase originally was to outlaw methods of punishment—such as torture, burning at the stake, or crucifixion that where to harsh for the level of crime that a individual have committed. Yet theirs the death penalty in some states which some feel it’s a fair form of justice. However it is not just the sentences a person may get from court but also the conditions of the prison. This amendment also apply to the jails the overcrowding, rape from inmates, insufficient medical care, protection from inmates and the unsanitary cells are forms of “cruel and unusual” punishment for some. The quote indicates that the constitution fails to check the process within states. The "cruel and unusual punishments" seem to only apply to largely people of color. Politicians often aim for longer and harsh sentences when it's a minority who've been involved in a crime- despite the crime being soft or hard, empirical evidence is never considered.

The honest reason I've select this quote is because not only and I a women of color, but the minority group are continually fighting against politicians for change. The eighth amendment have effect many communities, destroyed many family and even caused death to many. The loop hole is that the evidences in many cases aren't being evaluated. If there's two poor evidences against a person they shouldn't be sentences to 40+ years. If this was a journey that all race experiences then that will be a different story. I believe many of us know or heard stories where the White man will get less or a more soft punishment compared to a man of Color that will either die in jail or spend more than half of his life in their. Sadly we are in the 21st Century and those of color are still suffering, from slavery, to segregation, to not being able to vote and now victims of a cruel injustice system. Of course they are people of color committing crimes, I'm not justifying that at all, but will a white man or women receive the same punishment if they committed the same crime? 

The American Political System 166 H01 (Lehman College)

The Constitution of the United States

Assignment #3

Article 1 (Legislative Branch)

Section 6 (Compensation)

Clause 1: "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Clause 2: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

Reference from above passage  (http://hobnobblog.com/2009/08/the-constitution-of-the-united-states-article-i-section-6/)

My interpertation of this section of the Constitution was the clarification of who  grants congressmen their salary which is the government. I also got the understanding that people who serve congress have "legislative immunity", which means they can't be charged with anything they say during congress meeting. To ensure the people who serve this profession that the president can not abuse his power on them for disagreement. The understanding I've got from the second clause of this section was those who serve in either executive or judicial branches of the United State government is unable to serve in Congress and the same in reverse. 

I've selected this section of the Constitution, because it was new to me. I always assumed that people who serve in the House of Representative or Senator was able to take another governmental job. I always thought that majority of the corruption that happens within the political house was due to the fact that chairmen or women was able to take another side of the government if they weren't happy with the work or decision that were taking action in representative house. It was also knew to me that what "happens in congress stays in congress". A congressman or women was unable to be arrested during meeting based on what they said, wheater it was outrages or illegal it was safe within congress. Of course unless it was a major criminal act, but if it was only words they are safe. I founded that inserting, because that clause is due to the fact that the president is unable to abuse his power if a person disagree with him or her.