Oregon City to Ban Would-Be Criminals

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Where in the constitution does it say that?

It is my understanding that they can deprive you of "liberty" with due process of law as per the fifth amendment, as long as this deprivation does not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" as per the eighth. Deprivation of liberty usually means restricting your motions to the inside of a prison. House arrest has never been challenged as far as I know; its a bigger comfier prison.

So, if your prison encompasses the entire country except for parts of Oregon then that does not seem wrong unless you feel it conflicts with other parts of the constitution.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: SoylentGreen In most small towns you will find that the majority of crimes are the actions of one or two particular families or even individuals. I think the police chief has identified who is responsible for most of the criminal activity and is just looking for a way to rid himself of these people.

Eugene is a fair sized city.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Quote by: tivodan1116 In terms of people who have already been convicted, on an individual basis, yes, the courts do sometimes "ban" people from going to certain places (sex offenders not going near daycare centers, for example). However, in all cases, those "bans" need to be substantially related to the crime the person has committed. Where in the constitution does it say that?

5th Amendment, 8th Amendment, 14th Amendment.

The 8th Amendment, in particular, deems that punishment must be proportional to the crime. The concept has been confirmed in the writings of the framers of the Amendments and Supreme Court decisions going back as far as Weems v. U.S. in 1910.

I'll presume you understand how Constitutional law works.

Am I misreading your signature?

What are you talking about? My signature? Stop beating around the bush.

[Kamehameha34]

The 8th Amendment, in particular, deems that punishment must be proportional to the crime. The concept has been confirmed in the writings of the framers of the Amendments and Supreme Court decisions going back as far as Weems v. U.S. in 1910.

And you believe this particular punishment is disproportional?

What are you talking about? My signature? Stop beating around the bush.

You imply that the constitution is as archaic and worthless as the concept of bleeding people with leeches.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 And you believe this particular punishment is disproportional?

Depends on the crime.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You imply that the constitution is as archaic and worthless as the concept of bleeding people with leeches.

I always figured his quote meant that the constitution is a living document and needs to be changed as times change. But that's just me, let's see what tivo says.

[Kamehameha34]

Depends on the crime.

So you agree that some crimes could allow for it?

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 So you agree that some crimes could allow for it?

I guess, but the crime would have to be serious or have to do something with the town.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Halofan48 I guess, but the crime would have to be serious or have to do something with the town.

Why? Does murdering, stealing, rape, or any of the heinous acts people are convicted of have anything to do with a jail cell? Of course not, but that's still where they're sent.

Like someone else said, this act would just put criminals in a jail cell the size of the entire world, minus the landmass of one town in Oregon.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: HelioPrime Small towns? That "town" has a greater population than Hartford and many of "cities" in my state. I'd hardly call 153,000 people a town small enough where only a a few known culprits commit crimes. My "town" is only 68,000 people yet have a police force of over 500 officers.

Ok I will take your word for it.
But you bring up a really interesting point I hadn't realised about america.
68,000 people and 500 cops. That to me just seems totally overkill.
I live in a town of 10,000 and we have a cop shop that is only open a few days a week and the occasional patrol car from the next bigger town that wanders through every so often.
In total we have 8,000 police for a population of 4,000,000.
Do you guys think you might be a bit over policed?

[Dan_77]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 And you believe this particular punishment is disproportional?

Yes.

First of all, it purports to ban people who have merely been accused of a crime. Since they are guilty of precisely zero crimes, any punishment is disproportionate.

Second, it is disproportionate to ban all persons who have been convicted of any crime from a particular area for life because it does not relate to the nature or seriousness of the crime. The concept that the "punishment fit the crime" is found in the Framers' writings contemporaneous to the 8th Amendment, and was a rejection of the colonial British model, under which some people were hanged for petty crimes and other (more influential or wealthy) people were let go on serious offenses.

All citizens are guaranteed equal protection of the law. Therefore, if you can show that the law unduly infringes the rights of one person, it is invalid. This law would unduly infringe the rights of a person who has lived in the town all their life, works there, shops there, has family and friends there, but in 1958 committed a misdemeanor assault for which they served 30 days in jail. Certainly there is not a reasonable argument to be made that a person must leave their home, family, town, job, social network, and everyone else for a 50-year-old misdemeanor.

Bad as to one, bad as to all.

You imply that the constitution is as archaic and worthless as the concept of bleeding people with leeches.

LOL... not at all. In fact, the brilliance of the Constitution is the heart of the statement. The quote was in response to the attitude of moral/professional superiority taken by many doctors I have interacted with who comment on my profession. I was saying that, for all of their conceit, doctors have a long history of duping laypeople, taking unreasonable risks, purveying supposed treatments that are nothing of the sort, and in many cases outright fraud. Lawyers, on the other hand, taken as a whole have a history of more good works than bad (despite recent media perceptions). No I don't have any proof of that - it's just my opinion summed up in a pithy quote.

[Kamehameha34]

First of all, it purports to ban people who have merely been accused of a crime. Since they are guilty of precisely zero crimes, any punishment is disproportionate. Second, it is disproportionate to ban all persons who have been convicted of any crime from a particular area for life because it does not relate to the nature or seriousness of the crime. The concept that the "punishment fit the crime" is found in the Framers' writings contemporaneous to the 8th Amendment, and was a rejection of the colonial British model, under which some people were hanged for petty crimes and other (more influential or wealthy) people were let go on serious offenses. All citizens are guaranteed equal protection of the law. Therefore, if you can show that the law unduly infringes the rights of one person, it is invalid. This law would unduly infringe the rights of a person who has lived in the town all their life, works there, shops there, has family and friends there, but in 1958 committed a misdemeanor assault for which they served 30 days in jail. Certainly there is not a reasonable argument to be made that a person must leave their home, family, town, job, social network, and everyone else for a 50-year-old misdemeanor.

Would you oppose giving the courts the power to ban people that commit serious crimes from the town if they weren't allowed to retry citizens that have already carried out their trial?

Sure, the punishment isn't directly relateable to the town, but I'd wager that most serious felonies in the town aren't directly related to jail either - but that doesn't stop us from sending felons there.

LOL... not at all. In fact, the brilliance of the Constitution is the heart of the statement. The quote was in response to the attitude of moral/professional superiority taken by many doctors I have interacted with who comment on my profession. I was saying that, for all of their conceit, doctors have a long history of duping laypeople, taking unreasonable risks, purveying supposed treatments that are nothing of the sort, and in many cases outright fraud. Lawyers, on the other hand, taken as a whole have a history of more good works than bad (despite recent media perceptions). No I don't have any proof of that - it's just my opinion summed up in a pithy quote.

Fair enough.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Ok I will take your word for it. But you bring up a really interesting point I hadn't realised about america. 68,000 people and 500 cops. That to me just seems totally overkill. I live in a town of 10,000 and we have a cop shop that is only open a few days a week and the occasional patrol car from the next bigger town that wanders through every so often. In total we have 8,000 police for a population of 4,000,000. Do you guys think you might be a bit over policed?

But does your country have almost as many cars as people, and miles and miles of interstates and roadways, as well as a vibrant lower class districts where crime occurs daily?

I'm sure you'll retort that we make to much illegal in this country but the fact is there is a need for a police presence and much of it traffic related or related to the keeping of peace at events or schools. Every school has an officer present as well as the shopping centers which keep several officers occupied. We've toured the police station since it shared a property with my middle school. Most officers are kept on patrol, and the station serves as the hub, tracking and keep watch.

We don't have the largest prison population just because of drugs. Hartford alone has has 27 murders since January, my town has had 10 and 2 of them this past week of two bodies discovered along and exit ramp.

I think you'd have to come here and walk along the street in the north end of hartford to understand. Crime is a fact of life and thats why there is a large police force.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Would you oppose giving the courts the power to ban people that commit serious crimes from the town if they weren't allowed to retry citizens that have already carried out their trial?

In the right circumstances that would pass muster.

What I'm essentially saying is that it needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. The legislature cannot simply pass a statute saying no person with a criminal record is allowed in X Town.

I can see it in certain extreme cases. A serial armed robber whose m.o. is robbing stores on a certain street could be banned from that street, for example. Those sorts of things are done by parole boards all the time - to keep from violating their parole and being sent back to prison, parolees cannot hang out with certain people, etc.

The right to travel has been ensconced as one of the fundamental "liberty" rights granted by the Constitution. To pass Constitutional muster, any act by the government to restrict the right to travel must be in furtherance of a compelling government interest, narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and be the least restrictive means of doing so.

Sure, the punishment isn't directly relateable to the town, but I'd wager that most serious felonies in the town aren't directly related to jail either - but that doesn't stop us from sending felons there.

Well, maybe "related" was a bad word to use on my part. "Proportional" is a more accurate one.

Prisons are, relatively speaking, a somewhat new field in criminal justice. Prisons are related to the crime in a few ways, however. They are (ostensibly) a specific incapacitation, that prevents the offender from repeating their crime while incarcerated. They are also jurisdictional - someone who commits a crime in NY is punished by the NY penal system.

Quote by: HelioPrime We don't have the largest prison population just because of drugs. Hartford alone has has 27 murders since January, my town has had 10 and 2 of them this past week of two bodies discovered along and exit ramp.

Not just because of drugs, no. But just because of the "War on Drugs", yes. If drugs were legal the related crimes surrounding them would drop drastically. The money involved in drugs fuels gangs and other criminal organizations and forces addicts to commit crimes to get high.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Eugene is a fair sized city.

Eugene, what the hell was I saying?

[SoylentGreen]

HelioPrimeI'm sure you'll retort that we make to much illegal in this country but the fact is there is a need for a police presence and much of it traffic related or related to the keeping of peace at events or schools

I am not sure what i would retort to that actually. But the idea that you need police to keep the peace at schools is just freaky.

[Kamehameha34]

In the right circumstances that would pass muster. What I'm essentially saying is that it needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. The legislature cannot simply pass a statute saying no person with a criminal record is allowed in X Town. I can see it in certain extreme cases. A serial armed robber whose m.o. is robbing stores on a certain street could be banned from that street, for example. Those sorts of things are done by parole boards all the time - to keep from violating their parole and being sent back to prison, parolees cannot hang out with certain people, etc. The right to travel has been ensconced as one of the fundamental "liberty" rights granted by the Constitution. To pass Constitutional muster, any act by the government to restrict the right to travel must be in furtherance of a compelling government interest, narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and be the least restrictive means of doing so.

Of course, which is why I suggested giving only the courts this power - as they could judge on a case-by-case basis and also allow for due process.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: SoylentGreen I am not sure what i would retort to that actually. But the idea that you need police to keep the peace at schools is just freaky.

Yeah, but the one at my school is usually there more information purposes and stuff. Only time he does anything is during a fight, and then he just pulls them away from each other. Though, unfortunately, in some schools they do have to do some more serious things.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Halofan48 Yeah, but the one at my school is usually there more information purposes and stuff. Only time he does anything is during a fight, and then he just pulls them away from each other. Though, unfortunately, in some schools they do have to do some more serious things.

What do you mean information purposes? We have police occasionally do school visits to do a speech on drug awareness. But they don't hang around to break up fights, teachers do that.
I have heard that some schools have metal detectors. You guys have some serious antisocial activities occurring in your schools.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: SoylentGreen What do you mean information purposes? We have police occasionally do school visits to do a speech on drug awareness. But they don't hang around to break up fights, teachers do that. I have heard that some schools have metal detectors. You guys have some serious antisocial activities occurring in your schools.

For the info stuff, i'm not really sure, i guess just to answer questions about whats legal and whats not

Yeah, some of the schools in the city have metal detectors. Disturbing really.