The price of breaking the constitution is too low in western countries
I have been mulling over this topic for a while and i think it's one of the main reasons people on all political sides feel their constitutional rights aren't respected enough even in western countries.
A mechanism should be in place to punish any violator of the constitution extremely harshly.
How? let's see how it should work in practice for me, at the federal level in the USA (it should apply at state level for the state constitution as well, and ofc in other countries as well).
You are a legislator, or member of the executive in an executive function, of law official, or anyone else acting under the power of the law.
Your actions are later confirmed to be a violation of the constitution by a court , with appeal confirming, or by SCOTUS. You didn't act under precedent, nor with legal counsel specifically telling you they thought your actions were constitutional.
Well, at a very minimum you should be barred from holding office (elected or otherwise) for life, and to work for the state in any capacity, always for life. You should be kept away from state power like a child rapist is kept away from children.
And under judgement of the court that finds your actions unconstitutional, depending on the severity of the constitutional breach and statutes written for the purpose, you should potentially go to jail, potentially for a long time, and/or pay damages to the victim(s) of your constitutional violation(s) (from personal assets).
What would that generate as a second order effect? that anyone using state power wouldn't even dream of doing any action that isn't 100% transparently and uncontroversially constitutional.
That any shade of doubt about that, even the slightest, would convince the actor to ask the courts BEFORE enacting his legislation/EO/agency decision (yes rules have to be amended to make it the case that courts can be asked about the constitutionality of a statute/EO and so on BEFORE it is enacted. it is incredible this isn't the case already).
*if legal counsel tells you it was constitutional and it wasn't, you don't pay anything and they lose their license
Results: state power will behave according to the constitution and it's interpretation by the judiciary, everyone wins. Except people who hate the constitution that is.
Another needed change would be to change standings rules: everyone should be able to have standing in contesting the constitutionality of any action by any part of government just by being a citizen of a country.
The US fights other countries for extradition of drug kingpins like Escobar and El Chapo just so they can lock them up. Under your system, not only would they not be trying to extradite them, but if they managed to catch them on US soil, they'd try them, convict them, then send them back to Colombia or Mexico, right?
Under my system Escobar and many others would get the death penalty (if they committed crimes distinct from those drug related, because their drug operations would be as legal as walmart is in my model), the deportation stuff only applies for sentences under 15y remember.
Maybe that's the part which you didn't get at first reading, it's not like they dodge the death penalty if they qualify. Maybe i didn't write that clearly enough though.
It's just that if their crimes carry say 8 years, you send them home instead of spending 300k on them.
For the vast majority of crimes you would consider really serious, they would get the death penalty anyway.
Pretty sure most people in US prisons are US citizens? Do they get summary executions?
Also, I assume we're going to have to get rid of pesky things like appeals and legal review of all these death sentences. We talking like summary executions for these guys?
We're talking specifically about non-citizens serving time in US federal prisons. Keep up slowpoke.
Under my system Escobar and many others would get the death penalty (if they committed crimes distinct from those drug related, because their drug operations would be as legal as walmart is in my model), the deportation stuff only applies for sentences under 15y remember.
Maybe that's the part which you didn't get at first reading, it's not like they dodge the death penalty if they qualify. Maybe i didn't write that clearly enough though.
It's just that if their crimes carry say 8 years, you send
Ok, maybe I missed that part. I forgot you see the world in black and white. I mean, I consider bank robbery a pretty serious crime for which someone should serve time, but I don't want to start executing bank robbers. Same for most financial crimes.
Pretty sure most people in US prisons are US citizens? Do they get summary executions?
Also, I assume we're going to have to get rid of pesky things like appeals and legal review of all these death sentences. We talking like summary executions for these guys?
85% in federal prisons are americans, as per link. d2 said that proportion isn't the same in state prisons, maybe he is right i don't know.
I wrote about appeals wrt death penalty. First appeal as normal, then if you lose that, it's gg .
Oh i forgot another big thing in my model (my bad): default would be house arrest. No house arrest only in very specific cases (or if you have no house ofc). Death penalty if you break the terms of the house arrest though.
Ok, maybe I missed that part. I forgot you see the world in black and white. I mean, I consider bank robbery a pretty serious crime for which someone should serve time, but I don't want to start executing bank robbers. Same for most financial crimes.
I don't think either qualify for more than 15y currently , except outrageous cases.
Tbh i don't see how keeping Madoff in jail till he dies is more humane than killing him the day after he loses appeal. I see that as prolonged torture with no practical benefits for society and much much worse than a painless death.
But serial criminals commit most offences, and almost always, the most serious ones. And getting rid of them as soon as you can improves society massively.
House arrest sounds fantastic honestly…
85% in federal prisons are americans, as per link. d2 said that proportion isn't the same in state prisons, maybe he is right i don't know.
I wasn't talking about the proportion, just the absolute number.
I wrote about appeals wrt death penalty. First appeal as normal, then if you lose that, it's gg .
Oh i forgot another big thing in my model (my bad): default would be house arrest. No house arrest only in very specific cases (or if you have no house ofc). Death penalty if you break the terms of the house arrest though.
Lol.
Like please give me house arrest, I’m begging you
What crime do I have to commit to have that?
I don't think either qualify for more than 15y currently , except outrageous cases.
Tbh i don't see how keeping Madoff in jail till he dies is more humane than killing him the day after he loses appeal. I see that as prolonged torture with no practical benefits for society and much much worse than a painless death.
But serial criminals commit most offences, and almost always, the most serious ones. And getting rid of them as soon as you can improves society massively.
I'm loving this idea. I want to come to your country and commit bank fraud on a massive scale, and the worst that can happen to me if you catch me is I'll just have to go back.
My calendar says I have 238 appointments left for the year. Please. Please, can I have house arrest?
I think it should be the default for all crimes that aren't exceptionally serious. It costs far less for us (even if we include expensive monitoring technology), it reduces recidivism and so on and on.
I think the main objection to that comes usually from people who see the justice system as retribution. I don't, i see it as a way to get rid of a problem of society. I don't care to have the criminal "suffer", i just want society not to be negatively affected by his existence as much as possible.
Even if you disagree with the death penalty for 15 years or more of sentence, pretty sure we could start with automatic house arrest unless family members (if present in the house) disagree up to X years of sentencing and move from there. Technology exists to keep us safe from flight risks.
I'm loving this idea. I want to come to your country and commit bank fraud on a massive scale, and the worst that can happen to me if you catch me is I'll just have to go back.
bank fraud on a massive scale would get you the death penalty, and even if it didn't, your home country will very probably jail one anyway for it.
I think it should be the default for all crimes that aren't exceptionally serious. It costs far less for us (even if we include expensive monitoring technology), it reduces recidivism and so on and on.
I think the main objection to that comes usually from people who see the justice system as retribution. I don't, i see it as a way to get rid of a problem of society. I don't care to have the criminal "suffer", i just want society not to be negatively affected by his existence as much as possible.
E
Retribution is certainly one function of punitive incarceration, but deterrence is the one I'm focusing on here.
bank fraud on a massive scale would get you the death penalty, and even if it didn't, your home country will very probably jail one anyway for it.
You can't rely on what my home country will do to deter me from committing crimes in your country. And yes, ok, if we go with your lolidea of executing people for financial and other crimes which are currently non capital offences, then I suppose your proposal "works" a bit better.
I’m against capital punishment though.. I don’t believe the government should have the right to execute people.
You can't rely on what my home country will do to deter me from committing crimes in your country. And yes, ok, if we go with your lolidea of executing people for financial and other crimes which are currently non capital offences, then I suppose your proposal "works" a bit better.
Why do you consider a "lolidea" the death penalty instead of life no parole? it's only because of a very twisted present time moral that many people consider life no parole more moral.
Many if not most ancient cultures would clearly think the opposite.
One of the most insane justification to prefer life no parole to the death penalty is the "so you have a chance to repent" for example.
Why do you consider a "lolidea" the death penalty instead of life no parole? it's only because of a very twisted present time moral that many people consider life no parole more moral.
Many if not most ancient cultures would clearly think the opposite.
One of the most insane justification to prefer life no parole to the death penalty is the "so you have a chance to repent" for example.
Because I wouldn't give life no parole for bank robbery or bank fraud either. The lolidea was executing people for that.
Luciom.
How would we handle SBF? House arrest? Death penalty?
He's got 25 years I believe, he should come out when he's 55. Is that too young for death penalty? Is 25 years too much jail time so we should execute him instead?
I’m against capital punishment though.. I don’t believe the government should have the right to execute people.
Depends who they're executing.
Luciom.
How would we handle SBF? House arrest? Death penalty?
He's got 25 years I believe, he should come out when he's 55. Is that too young for death penalty? Is 25 years too much jail time so we should execute him instead?
Depends who they're executing.
I am not sure about what he actually did that was criminal (i can read the things he has been convincted for but they are very vague), how much if anything people lost and so on.
But starting from the idea that he stole billions from people of course death is reasonable? it's worse than 25 years at 30, but how isn't stealing billions an exceptional serious crime?
Because I wouldn't give life no parole for bank robbery or bank fraud either. The lolidea was executing people for that.
For 1 bank robbery out of the blue i wouldn't either. With precedents though you are almost certainly talking about a serial criminal (you have at that point to add crimes he must have committed which you haven't been able to identify in the past, by implication) so why not life no parole (or death if you could)? serial criminals are utterly incompatible with society.
Not sure what you mean with bank fraud but if you ruin hundreds of families (if not many more) how are you compatible with society? i don't understand your position.
For 1 bank robbery out of the blue i wouldn't either. With precedents though you are almost certainly talking about a serial criminal (you have at that point to add crimes he must have committed which you haven't been able to identify in the past, by implication) so why not life no parole (or death if you could)? serial criminals are utterly incompatible with society.
Not sure what you mean with bank fraud but if you ruin hundreds of families (if not many more) how are you compatible with society
Your position seems to be that sentences should be: house arrest, 8 years imprisonment or less, or execution. I am saying there are plenty of crimes that are worth more than 8 years and less than execution.
