Vegas Free-for-All - Real Justice

Real Justice

alanleroyII

Apr 20, 2013
12:40am

Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

So if we had a few wood chipper executions under our belts, would they still be 'unusual'?

Perhaps, but it would still be cruel. Guess we have have those Cambridge anti-Christian leftists that wrote the Constitution to blame for this.

Well wait one minute...It does say 'cruel AND unusual'...so if it's not 'unusual' it's not cruel AND unusual, no?

snidely333

Apr 20, 2013
12:56am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

So if we had a few wood chipper executions under our belts, would they still be 'unusual'?

Perhaps, but it would still be cruel. Guess we have have those Cambridge anti-Christian leftists that wrote the Constitution to blame for this.

Well wait one minute...It does say 'cruel AND unusual'...so if it's not 'unusual' it's not cruel AND unusual, no?

As to the method of punishment, the Eighth Amendment clearly bars punishments that were considered cruel at the time of its Adoption, such as burning at the stake, crucifixion, or breaking on the wheel (see In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 10 S. Ct. 930, 34 L. Ed. 519 [1890]). In Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S. Ct. 995, 117 L. Ed. 2d 156 (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even if the prisoner does not suffer serious injury.

So you see, even though something was common at the time, it was still deemed cruel and unusual.

alanleroyII

Apr 20, 2013
1:00am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

So if we had a few wood chipper executions under our belts, would they still be 'unusual'?

Perhaps, but it would still be cruel. Guess we have have those Cambridge anti-Christian leftists that wrote the Constitution to blame for this.

Well wait one minute...It does say 'cruel AND unusual'...so if it's not 'unusual' it's not cruel AND unusual, no?

If society can redefine 'Marriage' (Which I'm all for, by the way), it can redefine 'Cruel', besides, if the Framers wanted it 'Cruel OR Unusual', that's what they would have written. Of course the advantage of 'Burning at the Stake' is the scumbag is simultaneously barbequed for later consumption.

snidely333

Apr 20, 2013
1:09am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

So if we had a few wood chipper executions under our belts, would they still be 'unusual'?

Perhaps, but it would still be cruel. Guess we have have those Cambridge anti-Christian leftists that wrote the Constitution to blame for this.

Well wait one minute...It does say 'cruel AND unusual'...so if it's not 'unusual' it's not cruel AND unusual, no?

As to the method of punishment, the Eighth Amendment clearly bars punishments that were considered cruel at the time of its Adoption, such as burning at the stake, crucifixion, or breaking on the wheel (see In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 10 S. Ct. 930, 34 L. Ed. 519 [1890]). In Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S. Ct. 995, 117 L. Ed. 2d 156 (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even if the prisoner does not suffer serious injury.

So you see, even though something was common at the time, it was still deemed cruel and unusual.

If society can redefine 'Marriage' (Which I'm all for, by the way), it can redefine 'Cruel', besides, if the Framers wanted it 'Cruel OR Unusual', that what they would have written. Of course the advantage of 'Burning at the Stake' is the scumbag is simultaneously barbequed for later consumption.

Perhaps you and DrMilled should pursue this. Melbedewy might even join your cause. I don't think you'll get too far with all the left-wing lawyers in charge of things.

alanleroyII

Apr 20, 2013
1:39am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

So if we had a few wood chipper executions under our belts, would they still be 'unusual'?

Perhaps, but it would still be cruel. Guess we have have those Cambridge anti-Christian leftists that wrote the Constitution to blame for this.

Well wait one minute...It does say 'cruel AND unusual'...so if it's not 'unusual' it's not cruel AND unusual, no?

As to the method of punishment, the Eighth Amendment clearly bars punishments that were considered cruel at the time of its Adoption, such as burning at the stake, crucifixion, or breaking on the wheel (see In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 10 S. Ct. 930, 34 L. Ed. 519 [1890]). In Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S. Ct. 995, 117 L. Ed. 2d 156 (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even if the prisoner does not suffer serious injury.

So you see, even though something was common at the time, it was still deemed cruel and unusual.

If society can redefine 'Marriage' (Which I'm all for, by the way), it can redefine 'Cruel', besides, if the Framers wanted it 'Cruel OR Unusual', that what they would have written. Of course the advantage of 'Burning at the Stake' is the scumbag is simultaneously barbequed for later consumption.

Perhaps you and DrMilled should pursue this. Melbedewy might even join your cause. I don't think you'll get too far with all the left-wing lawyers in charge of things.

I wouldn't have Melbedewy on my team. I think DrMilled owns stock in a wood chipper company. And I'm just trying to bring new meaning to "Tapas".

Don

Apr 20, 2013
2:07am

Block User

: : : CAUTION ADVISED : : :
DonDiego cautions the curious but squeamish to NOT OPEN the below links
: : : CAUTION ADVISED : : :

Wood Chipper, Wood-Schnipper !

Why not bring back The Brazen Bull.

: : : CAUTION ADVISED : : :
Oh, and also DO NOT OPEN Brutal Methods of Execution provided courtesy of IndiaTV.
Apparently some things are still unacceptable on US TV-networks; this is a good thing.
: : : CAUTION ADVISED : : :

: : : CAUTION ADVISED : : :
Oh, and don't seek-out Cornell Wilde's 1966 film The Naked Prey to see the punishment administered to members of a European hunting safari by a tribe inhabiting the African veldt. This was a rare instance in which a movie turned poor young DonDiego's stomach. In fact, one is also advised to not even look up the description on Wikipedia.
: : : CAUTION ADVISED : : :

- - - DonDiego will not be held responsible for the results of anyone opening the above links.- - -

clcjim

Apr 20, 2013
4:44am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
It used to be standard procedure to eat your enemies after you've killed them.

That was a long time ago. Nowadays, after you've offed someone, it's much easier just to go order a Combo Meal at the drive-thru.

jatki

Apr 20, 2013
4:48am

Block User

WHOAAAA doggies, I thought spanish ticklers were something COM-PLETELY different. Good thin I didn't actually order some for that one hot date a long time ago, she might've freaked.

alanleroyII

Apr 20, 2013
7:55am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: clcjim

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
It used to be standard procedure to eat your enemies after you've killed them.

That was a long time ago. Nowadays, after you've offed someone, it's much easier just to go order a Combo Meal at the drive-thru.

That doesn't have the same deterrent value. Like I said. This generation's gone soft. Just throw someone in the wood chipper and you think you're all done with everything but the fast food. Of course, if you ordered your 'Combo', 'Cannibal Style' that might be an exception.

O2bnVegas

Apr 20, 2013
8:33am

Block User

The position description for wood-chipper excecutioner would be interesting.
I wonder how many would apply?

No punishment is sufficient. I'm not opposed to execution but I don't feel any better after hearing of one happening no matter what awful crime was committed. I can't imagine that family of victims are soothed either, but perhaps I am wrong. Anybody experienced this and want to share?

«‹5 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now