This is only a county court, so I'm not going to get too excited about it, but that doesn't mean I'll miss a chance to make fun of the mindset. A Denver local court struck down the city's ban on "urban camping" on the ground that it violates the 8th Amendment, because it would be cruel (and maybe unusual?) to criminalize camping on the street by people who have "nowhere else to go."
There's no limit to this approach, which focuses not on the particular punishment enacted by a callous public, but instead on the whole question whether it's a good idea to criminalize something.
Denver and San Francisco are providing a valuable public service as petri dishes.
4 comments:
Denver and San Francisco are providing a valuable public service as petri dishes.
With amazing things being...cultured...in the agar of those dishes.
Eric Hines
I am reminded of the court in Bolivia informing us that Evo could run for President again, in spite of the defeat of an amendment to Bolivia's constitution to permit him to run again. The court stated that Evo's "human rights" were violated by not letting him run again for President. I guess that not permitting him to run could also be determined "cruel and unusual punishment." Or it was "cruel and unusual punishment" to force Evo to resign after his underlings stuffed the ballot boxes for him. Stuffing the ballot boxes, because it would have been a violation of Evo's "human rights" to not be re-elected.
I have a human right to anything it would be cruel and unusual to deny me. Basically, just do everything my way and we'll be fine.
The Denver Court is just (more or less) copying a 9th Circuit ruling against Boise, Idaho.
(SCOTUS just recently rejected Boise's appeal of that ruling, too)
Post a Comment