When reading your post, it strikes that we could bring to the table the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . ." The clause prevents that a person be prosecuted twice for the same offense, and it also protects individuals from multiple punishment. It almost invites one to think that this clause could apply to cases like these as well in that one should not be punished twice for the same crime. But so often does the prisoner not only get punished with incarceration but also with not being allowed to seek or receive proper and dignified healthcare ? and that is a punishment, the effects of it varying depending on circumstance -, all for the same offense. It is not only cruelty but also double punishment. Denying access to reasonable healthcare is double punishment for the same offense and is in violation of a human right. So, I find, unless it is stipulated by the jury that x individual must be in prison for 20 years and that he shall not have access to reasonable healthcare, then access to adequate healthcare must be granted.

双重危险的想法很可爱，但没有法律依据。社会如何回应公众的不满，并不是法院官员的责任。比如放股票。亡命之罪是古代的同义词，在这种情况下，任何公民都可以攻击亡命之罪而不受惩罚，但宣布这种情况的当局本身并不承担对那些被判有罪的人的最终命运的责任，就像它下令进行这种攻击一样。毕竟，罗宾汉的命运可能会像宣布他为亡命之徒一样。但正是在宗教改革运动中，官员们获得了对被定罪者施以悔罪惩罚的权力。在此之前，惩罚是确定的，仅此而已，但忏悔的施加，复制想象中的“炼狱”条件，只有在官场获得神圣纠正的地位时才出现。还有挥之不去的傲慢的这种道德要求把神的忿怒的罪名成立,和唯一的缓和愤怒想象那些支持这样一个观点是,上帝的恩典在某种程度上获得的罪名成立,和任何进一步的问题后,他或她这句话一直被认为是进一步证明正确的惩罚和司法制度的惩罚。但随着这种观点的衰落，取代它的观点是模糊的，通常没有任何术语来击败它更陈旧的前身，除了实用主义，毕竟，按照边沁的说法，实用主义是“Panopticon”或“监狱”的仆人。但是，正义的概念可以理解过度惩罚的残酷，尤其是考虑到对上层阶级犯罪的温和回应，这些犯罪对公众的伤害要大得多，它总是伴随着正义的角色，作为神的审判，这让让罪犯为他们的罪行向公众负责的整个过程受到了质疑。 Bereft the role of dispensing divine retribution, what right does the public have to punish anyone at all? As long as there is a disparity between lower and upper class enforcement of the law, this question looms as a pernicious vexation in law. But whatever rationale we assume for a pragmatic application of public indignation, if that view is the future of our penal code, it must limit itself to the effective application of that standard, and to bringing about that state of individual conduct implied. And where that state is achieved, there the responsibility to punish ends, and the public has thereafter a responsibility to see to it that punishment does end, even if this means prohibiting private individuals from holding an earlier infringement of law against the reformed individual. And this underscores an area of law, one of many, in which the public has a responsibility for taking actions that alter or mitigate private interests motives and actions. The thing is, that more enlightened view, and the older view of public righteousness, are profoundly seditious to each other, and we have not yet even found the terms to indict the older view, though it has long been equipped with the terms of its attack. It can be very dangerous to bring up an issue before we know all the implications the terms we are lacking in it, especially when the opponent has all its terms sharply drawn and well tested.

You're weaving several issues and trying to weave one blanket out of them.
If you want to talk about reform in the criminal justice system then let's talk about that. Who we send to prison, for how long and for what crimes. I agree that this is an issue that needs to be talked about.
监狱中有精神健康问题的人的增加是自由主义者的直接结果，他们认为把他们放在治疗或管理他们的机构是残忍的。这些机构的关闭导致以前的许多病人被迫流落街头自谋生路，往往无法获得药物。所以他们犯罪是为了生存，为了被关进监狱，所以他们有住所、食物和药物，或者因为他们不知道更好的。是的，有更好的，更经济有效的方法来对待他们，但从你以前的行为中学习。简单地把他们踢出监狱，让他们再次自谋生路是行不通的。不管他们的精神状态如何，他们犯了罪，有时他们应该接受治疗，对于其他罪行没有其他选择。他们停药的事实并不能让他们杀的人复活。
在我说到你那篇文章的主要内容之前，我还要再反驳一下。放下“有色人种”之类的东西。白色也是一种颜色。
I would like to see people supporting convicts rights care at least as much for the victims as they do the criminal. You maintain that dying, alone, in prison is cruel and unusual (which according to the Constitution BOTH criteria have to be met, not just one, it doesn't say cruel OR unusual) and we should consider how the criminal feels. He/she gave up many of their rights when they decided to deny other people, other citizens, their rights.
当这个人绑架一名儿童，在杀害他/她之前的数周内反复折磨和强奸他/她时，对宪法权利的关注又在哪里呢?受害者独自一人，远离家人或爱人，没有尊严。这不是很残忍，很不寻常吗，因为受害者没有做错什么?
让受害者付钱支持侵犯他们权利的罪犯，无论时间长短，不是很残忍和不寻常吗?这和法官告诉受害者，他们必须把罪犯带进他们的房子，在一定的时间内给他/她提供食物、衣服和庇护是非常不同的。监狱只是一种代理方式。付钱的不是罪犯，而是受害者。
Yes, let's take your case of the 20 something year old who MURDERED someone 40 years previously. He's now 60 something. No career, no job, no way to support himself. Chances are his parents are gone, his siblings,if he has any, may or may not want anything to do with him, much less support him. He may or may not have any children, and if he does, will they want anything to do with him? They probably don't know him very well, if at all, they probably have lives of their own children of their own and may not want Dad/Grandpa around their kids. He has no Social Security or any other means to support himself.
So, let's be "humane" and kick him out of prison, probably into the streets, or maybe, at best, a halfway house or some such, onto the welfare system, where he'll probably still die alone and without treatment, so you can feel good that you "saved" someone.
You, in your Rockwellian view of life, naturally assume that his family is still around (if he really had one) and wants anything to do with him and take him in. You, of course argue that he's not the same person he was 40 years ago, at least he HAD 40 years to, possibly, change. Unlike his victim.
To say that prison is a punishment for crime is akin to saying that taxes are a punishment for working. It's more a natural consequence for choices made. I, as a citizen, have the human right to walk and live in my community without fear of someone stealing what I worked for, without fear of being assaulted or murdered. These are societies norms, if there are no consequences to those who violate those norms what is the point of having them?
Yes, the consequences should be proportional to the crimes, for everyone. Rich or poor, white or black, male or female. Politically connected or not.
The prison system is not broken. The justice system is flawed. I can't call it the criminal justice system because there is no need for justice for a criminal, the victims and society need justice, not the criminal. It needs improvement, or better yet we need to fix the things that lead many people into crime and into the justice system. Work to keep them out of the system in the first place.
The importance of families, 2 parents, same sex or not, for all kids, regardless of race or income status. Improved educational opportunities, in both inner cities and rural communities. Poor education is not just an inner city issue. Many rural, farming, and predominately white communities, have equally as poor educational systems as inner cities. They just don't use it as an excuse and crutch for poor choices.
收入不平等会导致犯罪和药物滥用的增加。如果你没有钱，没有希望，你会做你能做的生存或麻木自己的情况。
虽然有很多因素导致，甚至鼓励一个人犯罪，但最终他们做出了犯罪的选择。更多的人生活在和其他人一样的条件下，从不犯罪。虽然我们需要研究导致犯罪的因素，但我们也需要研究为什么个人会选择犯罪，而拥有威慑力量作为做出社会正确选择的动力就是其中一个因素。

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses workhouses?....,
最暴力的犯罪是在董事会里策划的，而不是在街上。精神病患者被移入监狱的事情确实发生了。你看过电影《铁娘子》吗?那个时代的疯人院是一种耻辱，出于医疗和人道主义的原因，这些疯人院被下令关闭。决定由当地社区承担治疗精神病患者和教育学习障碍的责任。但是，当地社区要么没能承担起这项工作，要么遭到了大声疾叫的NYMBY团体的阻挠。事实证明，把有学习障碍的人包括在内的教育扩张耗资巨大，这为“小政府”运动提供了有力的武器，更不用说彻底瓦解新政联盟的废除种族隔离了。臭名昭著的用极端案例来描述正义的谬误是一种修辞手段，而不是负责任的论证。不能因为少数罪犯是不可救药的，就把过分的惩罚强加给其他罪犯。在法律上，惩罚是代表整个社会，而不是以受害者的名义进行报复。《Lex talionus》并不是一项命令，要求公正的惩罚等同于犯罪，如果是这样，那么为什么有些人会因为盗窃几百美元而被判多年监禁? No, that maxim must be taken, not as a requirement to match the harm done, but as a maximum beyond which justice cannot go. In which case most now in jail have no business being kept there. A more typical case is the guy caught with a few joints in jail for a decade or more, or the sap who couldn't get to the court to pay the parking fine and ends up jailed for months, based primarily on court assigned fees that he is too poor to make good. If you want to do justice, it's a good deal more responsible to take into consideration who is actually being punished, and why. Minimum sentences are a throwback to the days when pickpockets were hung for stealing a silk hanky, or poachers for snaring a hare.

The current system of removal of healthcare rights doesn?t help the victims or the perpetrators. If we?ve gotten to the point where to deal with crime is to take away basic rights, then something is seriously wrong. Where is the morality in patronizing double punishment? The aim should be to prevent these crimes from happening again. But insensible incarceration and removal of healthcare rights only leads to further damage, not only for the perpetrator of the crime but for, say, the family of the victim, who must now, without a say in the matter, carry the burden of being tied to a system that they might find unjust.
并不是在所有的案件中，犯罪者都能避开导致他们犯罪的环境。以医疗污染的案例为例:一个人杀死了一个因精神分裂症危机而无辜的人，他既是杀人犯，也是自己疾病的受害者。一个杀死过马路的孩子的酒鬼既是罪魁祸首，也是他/她的酒精中毒疾病的受害者，等等。当然，这些都是具体的案例，我不会以任何方式为这些行为辩护。但是，这些人是否真的意识到，他们是在放弃自己的权利，剥夺他人的权利，因此，一旦被监禁，他们就应该剥夺所有的权利?鉴于此，我们如何在道德上和伦理上继续维持我们现有的惩罚系统是在帮助任何人?它真的能帮助受害者(包括被伤害的人、他们的家人和加害者)吗?是吗?难道我们不应该让受害者和他们的家人承担起一种非道德的惩罚体系(如果他们认为是这样的话)的责任吗?作为一个社会，我们首先应该努力防止犯罪的发生，当然，同时应该公正地惩罚犯罪者(通过监禁他或她，仅此而已)，如果不是这样，那么至少罪犯不会再次犯罪。

Crime is not limited to violence. Some crimes are the social effects of individuals taking actions that seem perfectly reasonable to them. The effect of excessive incarceration and subsequent denial of rights is to suppress the political and economic rights, not only of individuals, but of the political class to which they belong. And if the state has any responsibility at all (and states have no rights, but only powers incumbent upon the pursuit of its responsibilities) it is to mitigate the socially pernicious effects of individual action. Actions like creating slums by moving into a "good neighborhood", creating inferior schools by moving to richer school districts, creating an underclass by applying prejudicial standards in reviewing applicants, or in voting for an excessively punitive penal system. There is no case in law that is not individual, but law is always written as if justice were in principle a generality. There is no moral generality. Morality is this moment, not an abstract of others to which this case is somehow made to fit. What is right to do in this case can only be prejudiced by another. But such is the perversity of the human mind that it always tries to generalize what is in every case unique. But can we create a state which mitigates this? Not if we base it upon a process of choosing sides. Because the pernicious result of judging the unique in generalized terms is the emergence of such sides or factions. The possibility of the just state rests upon mitigating the zero-sum game that emerges as the pattern of individual actions coalescing into divisions that perpetrate social crimes just as vital for the state to address as individual violence.

In regards to Slyphian,
Consider,
(1) Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted.
这是否意味着只有残忍和不寻常的惩罚被排除在外，还是说残忍的惩罚被排除在外，不寻常的惩罚也就被排除在外了?Compare
(2) Pork and beef products are not eaten by vegetarians.
The natural reading is
(3) Pork products are not eaten by vegetarians and meat products are not eaten by vegetarians.
It might be possible to take (2) to only rule out things like stews with both beef and pork, but it?s not a natural reading.
Adjectives and nouns have connotations and denotations. The connotation is the property a thing has to have for the term to apply. The denotation is the set of things that have the property. The word ?and? can serve to combine the connotations, giving a complex property, such as
being a punishment that is both cruel and unusual
being a product that is both beef and pork
In this case the denotation is the intersection of the denotations of ?product?, ?beef? and ?pork?, or of ?punishment?, ?cruel? and ?unusual?. Call this the ?intersection? reading.
But 'and' can also be used, and more commonly is used, to combine the denotations. Take the denotations of ?product? and ?pork? and ?beef? and combine them, giving us the union. Call this the union interpretation.
Observations
(i) When the intersection is empty, the intersection reading is usually hard to get. If we say
(4) Expensive and cheap restaurants should not be considered
we clearly mean to rule out both expensive restaurants and cheap restaurants, not simply restaurants that are both cheap and expensive.
(ii) When the intersection reading is intended, in English, usually a comma or nothing is used rather than ?and?:
(5) Late disorganized papers will not be graded
(6) Late, disorganized papers will not be graded
both seem to allow papers that are disorganized but handed in on time, and papers that are late but well-organized. Whereas
(7) Late and disorganized papers will not be graded
is much more likely to be read as excluding the late organized papers and the on-time disorganized papers.
所以，回到
(1) Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted,
it seems that the union reading is both possible, and preferred, pace Scalia and Slyphian

制定法律?它有什么力?适用双重危险吗?把形式分析拉出来是残酷和不寻常的吗?问题是，它的力量依赖于同意。思想不是形式的奴隶。它必须自由地赢得这种形式的每一个任期，更明显的是，赢得其中的每一个任期。对于那些术语，请不要遵循表格。这是一种严格的反对意见，就像对“内涵”或“解释”的主张一样，推动了我们假设存在严格的形式法则的过程。有人称之为游戏，但如果它是一个游戏，它是一个比“博弈论”严肃得多的游戏。 It is a recognition that we have no unilateral right to be understood. That is the fundamental law of mind. We need each other free.
But what about the criminal code? The conservative view is that an orderly society requires coercive force to prevent violation of person and property. But this is at best a simplification prejudicial on behalf of those who have more to defend or to gain from it. And civil law is infamous for leniency to social violence that enlists its support. Those who most influence the law are most inclined to suppose a social requirement that it defend them, even as they engage in the greatest scale of criminal activity. The real question is, what is the meaning of the law in the first place? The fact is, orderly behavior is not only normal and occurring without lawful force at all, but that most of our institutions take that innate orderliness of human behavior for granted, and even use it to bilk unsuspecting citizens of their rights. rights that should be incumbent upon the orderliness of their behavior. But is the law in service to that innate orderliness, or to those who use it as the means to commit, highly orderly, crimes against us? The ancient suppositions of why law should be obeyed at all have eroded to a point that they can only sustain themselves with an increasingly shrill fanaticism, while that frenzied clinging to the past inhibits the real question. By what right does the law impose itself upon us? What is the law really doing? Revenge is not justice. "An eye for an eye blinds the world", as Gandhi said. Justice is not for the victim, nor for the restoration of some mystical or divine balance. But what is it for? But until we have an answer, pragmatism will have to do. And pragmatism is anathema to extremes. But if the force of logic is an expression of our needing each other free, in what sense is law?

This is a revision of my earlier post, with a new example and corrected analysis.

Re; Slyphian

Consider,
(1) Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted.
Does this mean that punishments that only punishments that are both cruel and unusual are ruled out, or that punishments that are cruel are rules out, and so are punishments that are cruel?
Compare
(2) Pork and beef products are not eaten by vegetarians.
The natural reading is
(3) Pork products are not eaten by vegetarians and meat products are not eaten by vegetarians.
It might be possible to take (2) to only rule out things like stews with both beef and pork, but it?s not a natural reading.
Another example, from Devon:
(D)美国男孩女孩俱乐部不是男女混合的。
One might read this as a contradiction. But it is more plausible to read it as
(D?) The Boys Clubs of America are not co-ed and the Girls Clubs of America are not co-ed.
Adjectives and nouns have connotations and denotations. The connotation is the property a thing has to have for the term to apply. The denotation is the set of things that have the property. The word ?and? can serve to combine the connotations, giving a complex property, such as
Being a punishment that is both cruel and unusual
Being a product that is both beef and pork
In this case the denotation is the intersection of the denotations of ?product?, ?beef? and ?pork?, or of ?punishment?, ?cruel? and ?unusual?. Call this the ?intersection? reading.
But it can also be used, and more commonly is used, to combine the denotations. Take the denotations of ?pork? and ?beef? and combine them, giving us the union. Then take the intersection of this set and the denotation of ?product?. We get the set of products that are pork and products that are beef. Call this the union interpretation.
Observations (i)
When the intersection is empty, the intersection reading is usually hard to get. If we say
(4) Expensive and cheap restaurants should not be considered
we clearly mean to rule out both expensive restaurants and cheap restaurants, not simply restaurants that are both cheap and expensive.
Observation (ii)
When the intersection reading is intended, in English, usually a comma or nothing is used rather than ?and?:
(5) Late disorganized papers will not be graded
(6) Late, disorganized papers will not be graded
both seem to allow papers that are disorganized but handed in on time, and papers that are late but well-organized. Whereas
(7) Late and disorganized papers will not be graded
is much more likely to be read as excluding the late organized papers and the on-time disorganized papers.
所以，回到
(1) Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted,
it seems that the union reading is both possible, and preferred, pace Scalia and Sylphian.

But what does "union" mean? What does "is" (or "will be")? Are the terms of the "union" same or different? What logic either? Is the reduction of a "conjunction" subjunctive? The law of contradiction does not apply as you imply it, for it is not there a formal a priori. If there are any troubling questions about any of this, what the hell gives you the right to threaten a bad grade? As for Scalia, I wish him no peace at all. His peace of mind is a plague upon us.

Shades of Willie Horton. Prevention? Since when is it the job of the judicial system to prevent crime? Sounds like reading tea leaves to me. Punishing people for potential crime is an institutional crime worse than any individual is ever going to commit. The fact is, as cases like Newtown show us, if we suppose we can predict what people are likely to do many thousands will be punished for crimes they probably never would have committed. There is no "criminally inclined" characteristic that does not show up in many law-abiding people. The punishment must fit the crime, period. It is no more the job of the judicial system to predict future behavior of convicted criminals than of those who never committed any crime. We do indeed review cases as to whether they deserve parole or early release, and in most cases they get it right, though more resources wouldn't go amiss. Another fact is that most of the people in our prisons never committed an act of violence and probably never will. So the whole issue of a responsibility to prevent crime is simply misapplied to the prosecution of the law. Enforcement, yes, but that is much less a matter of "getting bad guys" than it is of creating a social atmosphere in which people are disinclined to break the law in any socially toxic way. Good policing is far better than numerous arrests. It's a matter of making everyone feel they are on the same side of the law. Harsh sentencing is lethal to that goal.

如果一套法律体系对预防犯罪几乎或根本没有作用(正如沃什伯恩先生所建议的那样)，那么我们为什么要有这样一个体系呢?好吧，我想我们大多数人至少对我们确实有一个法律体系这一事实感到些许安慰，否则我们可能会回到完全无法无天的混乱状态。就我个人而言，我已经与终身监禁的问题斗争了几十年，仍然没有找到任何解决办法。可能因为没有比我更伟大的人会实现这样的想法，你不觉得吗?但是，不管我们选择怎样看待法律和法学，传统智慧(即犯罪学)似乎坚持惩罚是一种威慑。同时，在承认劳拉的困境的同时，一些暴力罪犯也经历了改造，设法走出了惩罚的殿堂，发现了有价值的生活。
One (if not the primary) aim of Christianity was to keep believers in line. The whole idea of the Commandments was to gently encourage believers to treat each other with respect, love and human kindness and to not kill, maim, cheat, covet, lie to, or otherwise make each other's lives miserable. However, as we are predisposed to do, humanity evolved, questioning ever more often the wisdom of teachings and the efficacy of holding to them. And, it seems rather certain that a similar evolution has been proceeding in other belief systems, so that, in order to regain order, law and jurisprudence have, in like manner, evolved. So, we apprehend, indict, try, and imprison criminals, and, in severe cases, we feel compelled to end their lives. And we decry,discuss and debate the effectiveness of cruel and unusual punishment. Clearly, we must do something to uphold the common good. Clearly (whether we like it or not), our system(s) has/have some deterrent effect-otherwise, there would be a lot more murders and murderers than there are already. I stated before that I thought forgiveness should have an expiration date. I still think so. It is true, too, that some folks deserve second chances. But if we were to summarily grant second chances to murderers, that would surely negate punishment as a deterrent. Immediately, if not sooner: even more murderers and their victims (uh, I hope we can agree that murdered people ARE victims?) All right. I have taken enough time on this. The problem is not going away any time soon. It is, in that sense, a lot like politics, is it not?
Cordially,
Neuman.

如果你仔细观察拿撒勒人的生活和他所处的时代，你会发现他显然是在试图找到一种让犹太人接受罗马统治的方法。这是所有。他失败了。“诫命”不是他写的，是摩西写的，几百条诫命中的大多数都相当愚蠢，但我们忽略了这些(比如，“不要用母牛的奶煮小牛的肉”)。但是人们很容易忘记这部法律是多么的残酷，以及它的执行是多么的残酷(通过社区犯罪的石刑)。事实是，法律并没有让我们遵纪守法，它只是我们遵纪守法的一种表达，并在一个直觉无法满足的复杂社会中提供了一种规则手册。确实有一些人会违反我们的这种社交性，但迄今为止最严重的罪行是那些涉及假设一些人不在法律范围内，因此需要法律来规范他们的生活的罪行。而当那些相信这种假设的人制定法律时，法律本身就成了罪犯。但是，这种关于“法律与秩序”的谬论最使我痛心的是，它的前提条件是依赖于人类遵纪守法的本质，即它过于激烈地明确地否定了人性。其结果是伪善，以及那种不公正的法律，把我们带向一个由圣人和罪人，进而由主人和奴隶组成的社会。 And where a stated motive is fallacy, I feel justified in reading into it a motive evidenced by the effect. Which is to say, a legal system that is criminal in effect is criminal by intent.

Hammurabi was a dear,
Hammurabi had no fear,
But Hammurabi had no rabbi
Had he?

Wherever you go, whatever you do;
There are always a few, who will aggravate you.
The obverse, of course, as the cart with the horse:
A ubiquitous few, are disgruntled by you.
Cheers,
Neuman.

The code of Hammurabi is often hailed as liberating the law from arbitrary rule, but it was quite arbitrary and meant to enslave. The 'law of Moses', actually comprising hundreds of clauses, was confabulated by expatriates kicked out of their cushy lives in Babylon after the Persian conquest who made the best of it by compiling a scriptural account with which to dominate the people of Israel, where they were forced to return. That is, like the code of Hammurabi, the Bible is meant to enslave. The spirit of the law is not to be found in writing. The partisans to the written do tend to get disgruntled by the unruly reality of the spoken word.