quote:Mayor Thomas Menino applauded the high bail.
"You have to send messages that we're not going to tolerate guns on the street," he said.
The message I'm getting sounds a little more like this.
Bit of an overreaction, I'd say.
If he really wanted to fight this sort of violence, he'd do better to send the kid into a D.A.R.E. program or counseling or something. This sort of loss of proportionality only makes the judge look silly.
-------------------- "For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who's going to govern Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire." ~Dick Cheney. Posts: 747 | From: Kansas | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an Eighth Amendment violation if I've ever seen one.
-------------------- ÒIf you shut up truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.Ó -Emile Zola Posts: 1046 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Don't Call Me Shirley
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote:That's an Eighth Amendment violation if I've ever seen one.
I'm not sure of the statutory laws of Mass. Trowa, but the Eighth Amendment does not apply to individual states, but rather to the federal government, so it does not necessarily apply in this situation. Again, there may be a state provision that applies.
IP: Logged |
quote:That's an Eighth Amendment violation if I've ever seen one.
I'm not sure of the statutory laws of Mass. Trowa, but the Eighth Amendment does not apply to individual states, but rather to the federal government, so it does not necessarily apply in this situation. Again, there may be a state provision that applies.
Huh? The Constitution doesn't apply to the individual states? Since when?
ETA: As it happens, Article XXVI of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts says "No magistrate or court of law, shall demand excessive bail or sureties, impose excessive fines, or inflict cruel or unusual punishments."
-------------------- If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales? Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Don't Call Me Shirley: I'm not sure of the statutory laws of Mass. Trowa, but the Eighth Amendment does not apply to individual states, but rather to the federal government, so it does not necessarily apply in this situation.
Huh? You're a lawyer, right? Then you should know that just about all the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states through the 14th Amendment.
That being said, however, because of special laws that apply to juveniles, they usually are not entitled to bail.
See a Texas case from 1999. The pertainent part says this:
quote: It has long been held in Texas that a juvenile has no right to bail because juvenile cases are civil, as opposed to criminal proceedings. ... However, in the case of In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967), the United States Supreme Court held that, despite the civil law designation, a juvenile is entitled, by virtue of the right to due process, to the right to adequate notice of charges, the right to counsel, the right to confrontation and cross- examination, and the right to the privilege against self-incrimination. ... The court did not rule on whether a juvenile is entitled to bail.
Since that time, numerous state courts have considered whether the denial of bail to juveniles constitutes a violation of the United States Constitution or of their state constitutions. Most have held that it does not. (Kansas, Rhode Island, Washington, Indiana, Utah, Kentucky, Alaska, Colorado, California, and Ohio.) ... The only state of which we are aware that has held to the contrary is Louisiana.
Pogue
-------------------- Let's drink to the causes in your life: Your family, your friends, the union, your wife. Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure Four Kitties is right. The Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights does apply to the individual states as well. I don't know where you got the idea that it didn't.
-------------------- "For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who's going to govern Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire." ~Dick Cheney. Posts: 747 | From: Kansas | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Don't Call Me Shirley
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote:Huh? The Constitution doesn't apply to the individual states? Since when?
ETA: As it happens, Article XXVI of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts says "No magistrate or court of law, shall demand excessive bail or sureties, impose excessive fines, or inflict cruel or unusual punishments."
Geez Kitties...calm down. Please read what I wrote. And BTW, quoting the MASS. CONSTITUTION just confirms my post. Yikes.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Don't Call Me Shirley: I'm not sure of the statutory laws of Mass. Trowa, but the Eighth Amendment does not apply to individual states, but rather to the federal government, so it does not necessarily apply in this situation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh? You're a lawyer, right? Then you should know that just about all the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states through the 14th Amendment.
That being said, however, because of special laws that apply to juveniles, they usually are not entitled to bail.
See a Texas case from 1999. The pertainent part says this:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It has long been held in Texas that a juvenile has no right to bail because juvenile cases are civil, as opposed to criminal proceedings. ... However, in the case of In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967), the United States Supreme Court held that, despite the civil law designation, a juvenile is entitled, by virtue of the right to due process, to the right to adequate notice of charges, the right to counsel, the right to confrontation and cross- examination, and the right to the privilege against self-incrimination. ... The court did not rule on whether a juvenile is entitled to bail.
Since that time, numerous state courts have considered whether the denial of bail to juveniles constitutes a violation of the United States Constitution or of their state constitutions. Most have held that it does not. (Kansas, Rhode Island, Washington, Indiana, Utah, Kentucky, Alaska, Colorado, California, and Ohio) ... The only state of which we are aware that has held to the contrary is Louisiana. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pogue
Thanks for quotin a TEXAS state case to me Pogue. When a Texas court can interpret laws for other states, you'll let me know I hope.
BTW you're wrong about the 14th amendment...The Bill of Rights is applied to state and local governments through its incorporation into the due process clause of the 14th amendment EXCEPT: the 2nd amendment roght to bear arms, the 3rd amendment right to not have soldiers quartered in your home, the 5th amendment right to grand jury indictment in criminal cases, the 7th amendment right to jury trials in civil cases and THE 8TH amendment right against excessive fines.
IP: Logged |
Don't Call Me Shirley
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote:I'm pretty sure Four Kitties is right. The Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights does apply to the individual states as well. I don't know where you got the idea that it didn't.
Sorry, but I'm pretty sure you should read my post above.
IP: Logged |
posted
States cannot have laws that violate the US constitution.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Don't Call Me Shirley
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote:States cannot have laws that violate the US constitution.
posted
Thus the US Constitution applies to states.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Don't Call Me Shirley
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote:Thus the US Constitution applies to states.
Ok. if you say so. I'll tell a friend of mine who is a Constitutional jurisprudence professor at George Washington University that you said so. Maybe he can cite to Snopes.
I'm not trying to be snarky, but what you have just said is slightly imprecise. Again, do a little research.
IP: Logged |
Don't Call Me Shirley
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
Sorry everyone. I apologize for being so snarky (even to Pogue). I've had a bad day, and have lashed out. I was also not precise when I first posted to Trowa. I should have specified (as I did in my second post) that I was referring to the excessive fines clause of the 8th Amendment.
Again though, the provisions (of the Bill of Rights) that I previously listed have not been found to be applicable to the individual states.
This apology is part of my trying to not be so partisan with people in the private sphere.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdr: Thus the US Constitution applies to states.
I think you are right about the Constitution applying, but not for this reason. My logic class is fuzzy, but something sounds wrong here in the reasoning here. Can anyone yank this off the tip of my tongue?
"States cannot have laws that violate the Constitution"
"Thus the US Constitution applies to States"
-------------------- "The little local company I buy from has CHEAP shipping and I have met their goats." (snapdragonfly)
"And that's one lost erection I'll never get back! You hear me Dan! I'm owed an erection!" (I'mNotDedalus) Posts: 2658 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If he really wanted to fight this sort of violence, he'd do better to send the kid into a D.A.R.E. program or counseling or something. This sort of loss of proportionality only makes the judge look silly.
Counseling maybe.. Unless he is distrubed though I'd say just sentance him to alot of community service. That way he gets punished, and isn't likely to do it again, and at the same time actually works to make the community better.
Unless D.A.R.E means something different in Mass (Drug Awareness Resistance Education) then I'd steer away from that. That program is the most pointless waste of money on idiotic propoganda that the government has ever concieved (well, if you exclude the fifties anyways )
-------------------- "All people are responsible for the good that they didn't do" Posts: 4774 | From: Virginia | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Don't Call Me Shirley
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote:"States cannot have laws that violate the Constitution"
"Thus the US Constitution applies to States"
It is wrong because it is wrong...hence my initially "yeah, thanks for the news, do you know the weather?" response to Angl.
For instance, a state may have laws that are more stringent than the US Constitution dictates...(e.g., just off hand, in NY (home to many Media companies), laws that protect the Media such as freedom of speech are broader than what the US Constitution dictates). If you follwed Angl's logic, states would not be able to do this because "the US Constitution applies to [states."
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Don't Call Me Shirley: It is wrong because it is wrong...hence my initially "yeah, thanks for the news, do you know the weather?" response to Angl.
But I meant there is a reason why it is wrong, in terms of logic. There is actual terminology that escapes me right now.
-------------------- "The little local company I buy from has CHEAP shipping and I have met their goats." (snapdragonfly)
"And that's one lost erection I'll never get back! You hear me Dan! I'm owed an erection!" (I'mNotDedalus) Posts: 2658 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Don't Call Me Shirley:
quote:"States cannot have laws that violate the Constitution"
"Thus the US Constitution applies to States"
It is wrong because it is wrong...hence my initially "yeah, thanks for the news, do you know the weather?" response to Angl.
For instance, a state may have laws that are more stringent than the US Constitution dictates...(e.g., just off hand, in NY (home to many Media companies), laws that protect the Media such as freedom of speech are broader than what the US Constitution dictates). If you follwed Angl's logic, states would not be able to do this because "the US Constitution applies to [states."
The constitution does apply to individual states in that no state may pass a law that contradicts the constitution. For example, New York's congress cannot establich the Church of Bob as a state funded religion. OTOH, the state can l=pass laws about licensing guns (you can have them, but you must register them) or under what ground, in addition to probably cause, a warrant can be granted (ie, over the phone, in person, etc).
-------------------- Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Roadie4JCM.:
quote:Originally posted by Don't Call Me Shirley: It is wrong because it is wrong...hence my initially "yeah, thanks for the news, do you know the weather?" response to Angl.
But I meant there is a reason why it is wrong, in terms of logic. There is actual terminology that escapes me right now.
Circular logic "It is correct because it is correct."
-------------------- Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!
Don't Call Me Shirley
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote:The constitution does apply to individual states in that no state may pass a law that contradicts the constitution. For example, New York's congress cannot establich the Church of Bob as a state funded religion. OTOH, the state can l=pass laws about licensing guns (you can have them, but you must register them) or under what ground, in addition to probably cause, a warrant can be granted (ie, over the phone, in person, etc).
Again, this is unrelated to what I initially said.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Don't Call Me Shirley: Thanks for quotin a TEXAS state case to me Pogue. When a Texas court can interpret laws for other states, you'll let me know I hope.
Wow. Did you even read the case or even the part I quoted? I did so because it referred to the U.S. Supreme Court, which, last time I checked, can interpret laws for states and the nation.
It also referred to rulings in 10 other states, and noted that only Louisiana ruled that juveniles have the Constitutional right to bail.
What I was doing was citing a reliable source to back up my facts. Perhaps you should try it.
quote: BTW you're wrong about the 14th amendment...The Bill of Rights is applied to state and local governments through its incorporation into the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
And you didn't even read my own post, because that is precisely what I said.
quote: EXCEPT: the 2nd amendment roght to bear arms, the 3rd amendment right to not have soldiers quartered in your home, the 5th amendment right to grand jury indictment in criminal cases, the 7th amendment right to jury trials in civil cases and THE 8TH amendment right against excessive fines.
Hmmm. I said "almost all the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states." You cited five instances where it does not. How again was I wrong?
Pogue
-------------------- Let's drink to the causes in your life: Your family, your friends, the union, your wife. Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The U.S. Constitution and federal law are the minimum standard for rights. States may grand additional rights within their borders (f'rinstance, you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation in Massachusetts, although you can on the federal level), but states may not be more restrictive (no state can pass a law permitting double jeopardy, for instance).
Schall v. Martin (1984) held, if I read it correctly, that the 8th Amendment does indeed apply to the states per the 14th, even in re juveniles, but that the same 8th Amendment exception standards to "protect the community and the individual" may be used to hold a juvenile as an adult. And that's a Supreme Court case, not a state case.
Four Kitties
-------------------- If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales? Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Don't Call Me Shirley:
quote:The constitution does apply to individual states in that no state may pass a law that contradicts the constitution. For example, New York's congress cannot establich the Church of Bob as a state funded religion. OTOH, the state can l=pass laws about licensing guns (you can have them, but you must register them) or under what ground, in addition to probably cause, a warrant can be granted (ie, over the phone, in person, etc).
Again, this is unrelated to what I initially said.
How so?
quote: you said: [qn]I'm not sure of the statutory laws of Mass. Trowa, but the Eighth Amendment does not apply to individual states, but rather to the federal government, so it does not necessarily apply in this situation. Again, there may be a state provision that applies. [/QB]
We are saying that the eigth ammendment does apply because there is nothing in the US constitution that says otherwise. Can you point to me a supreme court decitsion or a notation in the constitution that supports your argument?
-------------------- Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!
quote:Originally posted by DemonWolf: The constitution does apply to individual states in that no state may pass a law that contradicts the constitution. For example, New York's congress cannot establich the Church of Bob as a state funded religion.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, among other, disagrees with you. Read his dissent in Elk Grove v. Newdow
quote: I accept that the Free Exercise Clause, which clearly protects an individual right, applies against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Zelman, 536 U. S., at 679, and n. 4 (Thomas, J., concurring). But the Establishment Clause is another matter. The text and history of the Establishment Clause strongly suggest that it is a federalism provision intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments.
Pogue
-------------------- Let's drink to the causes in your life: Your family, your friends, the union, your wife. Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Four Kitties: Schall v. Martin (1984) held, if I read it correctly, that the 8th Amendment does indeed apply to the states per the 14th, even in re juveniles, but that the same 8th Amendment exception standards to "protect the community and the individual" may be used to hold a juvenile as an adult. And that's a Supreme Court case, not a state case.
Four Kitties
But that decision says nothing about whether a juvenile is entitled to bail under the Eighth Amendment.
Pogue
-------------------- Let's drink to the causes in your life: Your family, your friends, the union, your wife. Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Pogue Mahoring Has Broken:
quote:Originally posted by DemonWolf: The constitution does apply to individual states in that no state may pass a law that contradicts the constitution. For example, New York's congress cannot establich the Church of Bob as a state funded religion.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, among other, disagrees with you. Read his dissent in Elk Grove v. Newdow
Pogue [/QUOTE] actually, he concurred. I don't see a dissenting opinion here, but that's irrelavent to your point.
Wasn't this ruling reversed??
-------------------- Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!
quote:Originally posted by Four Kitties: The U.S. Constitution and federal law are the minimum standard for rights. States may grand additional rights within their borders (f'rinstance, you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation in Massachusetts, although you can on the federal level), but states may not be more restrictive (no state can pass a law permitting double jeopardy, for instance).
I think you and I have a differing interpretation of "more restrictive."
By my reading of Washington state law, specifically law concerning search and seizure, Washington can and does have a more restrictive provision than the Federal.
For example, under Federal law on car searches, it is all right to search the closed trunk, if there is probable cause to believe contraband would be found:
quote: In this case, we consider the extent to which police officers -- who have legitimately stopped an automobile and who have probable cause to believe that contraband is concealed somewhere within it -- may conduct a probing search of compartments and containers within the vehicle whose contents are not in plain view. We hold that they may conduct a search of the vehicle that is as thorough as a magistrate could authorize in a warrant "particularly describing the place to be searched."
U.S. v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982)
Under Washington law a warrant is required, even if the probable cause exists:
quote:While a police officer may conduct a search of the passenger cabin of a vehicle incident to the arrest of the occupants, see State v. Stroud, 106 Wn.2d 144, 152, 720 P.2d 436 (1986), it is well established that a warrant is required to search a locked trunk, see State v. White, 135 Wn.2d 761, 770-71, 958 P.2d 982 (1998).
Washington v. Gaines, 119 P.3d. 993 (Wash. 2005).
Seaboe
-------------------- Education is not the filling of a hard drive, but the lighting of a bulb. -- Yeats via Esprise Me Posts: 5562 | From: Seattle, WA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I know nothing of law and therefore can't really add to what has been said above about the Constitution and states rights, etc. So I'm not going to touch that.
What I will say is that I do think levying a fine that large against one kid is a bit much. From what I've read this is a kid that hasn't really been in trouble before and is developmentally delayed. Does that excuse being stupid enough to carry a gun around? No, of course not. But it also doesn't merit that much of a fine.
I can understand that the judge is pissed off b/c of all the cases and the fact that this year has had a high rate of people getting shot in boston, and many of them have been teenagers or kids. But it's troublesome that he's taking his frustration out on one kid, and not on the system and other factors that are leading to him having such a caseload.
Then again, maybe he wanted some attention, and he certainly has gotten it.
Just my two cents.
-------------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning- Einstein Posts: 290 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Don't Call Me Shirley
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
Woah. First of all. I never participated in any discussion involving a juvenile, so I'm not touching that one. Second, I think I found a case from 2001 that may be on point, and if so, I owe you all an apology. When I have more time to read it, I will post a cite, but from my cursory glance, it seems to say definitively that the 8th amendment restriction against excessive fines is applied to the states through the 14th amednemnt DP clause.
Seaboe, I agree with your assessment of the more/less restrictive issue brought up by Kitties.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DemonWolf: actually, he concurred. I don't see a dissenting opinion here, but that's irrelavent to your point.
Wasn't this ruling reversed??
You're right. But read his concurring opinion, in which he states that he believes it is Constitutional for states to establish a state religion.
My point was that a Supreme Court justice disagreed with your interpretation of the establishment clause.
Pogue
-------------------- Let's drink to the causes in your life: Your family, your friends, the union, your wife. Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Don't Call Me Shirley: Woah. First of all. I never participated in any discussion involving a juvenile, so I'm not touching that one.
But you did. You were directly responding to my posts regarding bail for juveniles.
But then again, I don't think you actually read my posts before you criticized them, so I may be wrong.
Pogue
-------------------- Let's drink to the causes in your life: Your family, your friends, the union, your wife. Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker: I think you and I have a differing interpretation of "more restrictive."
By my reading of Washington state law, specifically law concerning search and seizure, Washington can and does have a more restrictive provision than the Federal.
For example, under Federal law on car searches, it is all right to search the closed trunk, if there is probable cause to believe contraband would be found.
Under Washington law a warrant is required, even if the probable cause exists.
While that may be more restrictive on police, it expands the rights of the people, which is the entire point of the Bill of Rights.
Pogue
-------------------- Let's drink to the causes in your life: Your family, your friends, the union, your wife. Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Four Kitties: The U.S. Constitution and federal law are the minimum standard for rights. States may grand additional rights within their borders (f'rinstance, you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation in Massachusetts, although you can on the federal level), but states may not be more restrictive (no state can pass a law permitting double jeopardy, for instance).
I think you and I have a differing interpretation of "more restrictive."
I think 4K meant more restrictive, as it applies to rights retained by the people, not those given to the government.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Don't Call Me Shirley
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote:But you did. You were directly responding to my posts regarding bail for juveniles.
But then again, I don't think you actually read my posts before you criticized them, so I may be wrong.
Pogue
No, I did not. I was responding to your response of my initial statement. I never directly addressed the juvenile issue, no matter how much you wish that I had.
As for your second sentence, I say "Pot, have you met Kettle?"
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
