Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause

A member of the armed forces turned over to the civilian authorities upon request is not absent without leave while held by them under that delivery. When a member of the armed forces, being absent with leave, or absent without leave, is held, tried, and acquitted by civilian authorities, the member’s status as absent with leave, or absent without leave, is not thereby changed, regardless how long held. The fact that a member of the armed forces is convicted by the civilian authorities, or adjudicated to be a juvenile offender, or the case is “diverted” out of the regular criminal process for a probationary period does not excuse any unauthorized absence, because the member’s inability to return was the result of willful misconduct. If a member is released by the civilian authorities with-out trial, and was on authorized leave at the time of arrest or detention, the member may be found guilty of unauthorized absence only if it is proved that the member actually committed the offense for which detained, thus establishing that the absence was the result of the member’s own misconduct.

Denied citizenship by the United States, a man without a country, he was tormented and interrogated by the government based on this reality, labeled a “disloyal” citizen to the U.S. Severing Ko from the remainder

The death penalty was established as a form of punishment as far back as the 1600's. There are many controversial issue's in our world today whether it goes against our civil rights or not. As of today there are thirty-two states who still allow the death penalty and seven states who have completely abolished it ( Norton,W.W.& Company, Inc 115.) Even though the use of the execution has gradually decreased, there have still been many cases in the past years that states have still used it. At one point there was a time the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional, but after a couple years the court allowed states to bring back the death penalty. The courts have struck down many laws where states have tried making it mandatory in

David Figueroa Eng. 101A Professor Stern 4/20/15 Final draft In conclusion, in discussions of torture, one controversial issue has been on the use of it. On one hand, the people against torture argue that it is cruel and unusual punishment. On the other hand, those for torture argue that it should be used for the greater good. Others even maintain that under extreme circumstances, it may be admissible if it can save American lives. My own view is that no one should be subjected to cruel punishment because it is not only illegal, unreliable, ineffective, time consuming, it also has too many flaws that could potentially ruin innocent lives. The definition of torture is any act, whether physical or emotional, or maybe both, is intentionally subjected to a specific individual or a group for many reasons. Most of these reasons that torture is administered is for extracting information from an individual or just for punishing him/her for a crime that he/she has committed or is suspected of committing. The use of torture can be used to intimidate a person to give information that may be beneficial for a nation. The use of torture has been used for many centuries. The purposes of using torture have changed over the years as well as the methods in which a person is tortured. One crucial piece that has been established that separates us human beings from barbarians is the prohibition of using torture. There are many reasons why torture has been deemed a crime now in society. There are

After Fort Semester in South Carolina was attacked, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus by issuing presidential executive order on 27 April 1861, which was applicable across the entire US (Manuell, 2013). Through this order, Winfield Scott, who was the commanding general of the army was authorized to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, implying that citizens in Maryland could be arrested if they were found involved in violating the country’s laws. Consequently, thousands of people were detained in being suspected of sympathizing or spying for the Confederates (Dirck, 2010).

The mandatory sentence of two years’ imprisonment is unconstitutional because it is “cruel and unusual punishment” which infringes upon the accused’s right not to be subjected to such treatment. Firstly, it is determined that the mandatory minimum sentence in this case is grossly disproportionate to the accused’s circumstances and would be reasonably foreseeable that the provision would have the same overreaching effect on other offenders. Secondly, the provision in question in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is not saved by section 1 of the Charter as it has failed the prescribed Oakes test. The test gives weight to the law’s objective in comparison to the means of achieving it, which in this case, impaired too heavily on the right of the accused.

Torture has been a sensitive subject in our government and among the people of the US. The article “Torture is Wrong-But it Might Work” Bloche about how even though torture is not moral to some, it can still provide effective results because of advanced techniques and psychological studies. He goes on to say that many believe it is effective but others will say it does not provide adequate results in interrogation efforts. Senators such as John McCain (R-Ariz.) believe it does not help at all; however, other government officials, such as former attorney general Michael Mukasey and former vice president Dick Cheney, believe it does (Bloche 115).

-Also, the attorney general could request, before the week ended, that the implicated be detained for up three weeks. The detainees were not allowed to consult a lawyer, and many were held sequestered. (Pg. 167)

claiming his right as a prisoner of war not to be treated like a servant. The

The suffering, pain, or humiliation, of a person is considered cruel and unusual punishments and is not acceptable by the Eighth Amendment which states the prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments. With this amendment you have the rights of; protection from physical brutality, rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, your rights to decent conditions in prison, also your rights to medical care.

Does California’s three strikes law  defy the law of  the eighth amendment prohibiting the against cruel and usual punishment? In the case of Ewing v. California this question is put to the test when a man is sentence 25 years to life because of the “three strikes you 're out” policy.

I am going to fight against amendment 8 which says that there shall not be any cruel punishments for people. I don’t really agree with the 8th amendment because I think that people who kill someone or steal something from somewhere that they should get punished. I think that they should get punished by going to jail or something else. Just because they killed someone doesn’t mean that they should get away with it.

there are cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” If MCA’s habeas

We believe that a life sentence of solitary confinement is cruel and unusual because people kill themselves and they can have mental problems and become worse.On the other side they think a life sentence of solitary confinement is not cruel and unusual. A supporting point could be inmates learn there lesson better like if they were in solitary confinement. Another point could be inmates have done such bad crimes so they should go in there like if someone robs a bank. Also inmates have been in gang violence or officers being killed this would be the best place for them it can save our public safety. This is a good punishment for troublesome inmates they would be alone and could not kill anybody. Are side people can learn their lesson but it

Justice O’Connor, Kennedy, and Breyer wrote the majority’s ruling. They did not defend their position well. Executives had the authority to detain citizens who qualified as “enemy combatants” as “necessary and proper” and in “important incident(s) of war.” The term “enemy combatant” was often depicted as “universal agreement and practice” against “nations, organizations, or persons” and as “citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government...” It was also seen as “part of or supporting forces hostile to the US or coalition partners” and being “engaged in an armed conflict against the US.” The Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) gave the force to apprehend Hamdi. The Government concedes* “given its unconventional