Another Stab at the U.S. Constitution

Another Stab at the U.S. Constitution

  Revisiting the Constitution: Clarify What's Cruel and Unusual Punishment

By Rachel E. Barkow

 

 "We are a nation dedicated to liberty and equality. So it is a particularly tragic irony that America leads the world in imprisonment and that a large proportion of those serving sentences are people of color.

     Sometimes prison sentences -- even the most severe -- are a rational response to crime. But often, sentences are the product of a political process in which politicians are scared of appearing soft on crime so they do not even question the reasonableness of a proposed criminal law. It is the norm, not the exception, for politicians to reflexively push for harsher sentences without considering empirical evidence about what level of sanction is necessary for deterrence or what impact a sentence will have on communities. It is an environment long on rhetoric and short on reflection.

     The Constitution has failed to check this pathological process. The Eighth Amendment bans "cruel and unusual punishments." But some justices do not think this bans excessive prison terms. And the requirement that a sentence be "unusual" has meant that the justices often do little more than count up states with similar sentences without looking at how states reached those outcomes.

     As I have suggested elsewhere, clarifying and expanding the Eighth Amendment could help. It should specifically state that excessive terms of incarceration are prohibited, just as it bans excessive fines. It should expressly prohibit mandatory sentences so that every case gets the benefit of individualized attention by a judge. And it should insist that legislatures create a record showing that they considered empirical evidence about the law's likely impact.

     These reforms may or may not stem the tide of mass incarceration. It depends on the empirical evidence and individual cases. But they would promote the kind of reflection that a nation committed to liberty and equality should demand before locking people away."



     Rachel E. Barkow explains how unfair many crimes are sentenced to an unreasonable amount of time. Many judges and prosecutors overlook the Eighth Amendment because they feel that a crime is a crime and it must be resolved by an excessive amount of time in prison. Rachel expresses and insists that if legislatures do decide to sentence an excessive amount of time in prison, that they first consider the Eighth Amendment before making their final decision. Sentencing someone an unreasonable amount of time in prison simply because of their race is against the law but for some reason it's usually those of color who are incarcerated for a long time. Treating everyone in any and every community equally, brings a positive outcome, which should be taken into consideration in any situation that may occur.

     I agree with Rachel that many people are being incarcerated for an excessively long time simply because of the color of their skin. There are people who have done the same or worse crimes who are sentenced less time than others. I always asked myself how does anyone decide the amount of years a criminal will spend in prison. I now have a better understanding of the matter and realize how unfair and inconsiderate the judge or legislation can be. If laws must be followed by the citizens of its country, so shall the government with the amendments.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

 Article. I.

Section. 5.
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."

      
     Each House has the opportunity to judge elections being made and even if there is a group with the majority of the vote, the smaller group must to attend and have input to make the election valid. The smaller group has the upper-hand when and if a member of the majority group is absent in the event of a meeting. Each house may discipline another if he is misbehaved and may be expelled if it is a reoccurring action. A journal is to be kept from each House to document decisions being made to judge any and every election and as there may be secrecy between a House and its members. All votes for any debates are kept documented as well in journals if at least one fifth of the members desire to. No one member is allowed to break off the meeting for more than three days without the approval of other members.

     I agree that although in situations like making a big decision the majority is expected to win, that everyone should have part in the final decision. Everyone should be involved even if the majority of the vote wins because there might just be certain little things they have not yet thought of that the smaller vote might have considered. Most see the big picture but forget about the small very important details in decision making; especially when it's effecting a nationwide population. It should be a team decision which means if you're given the opportunity to make a change you should always be present to support your team and show effort to prove your opinion matters.

Trans-National America

Trans-National America

"We are all foreign-born or the descendants of foreign-born, and if distinctions are to be made between us they should rightly be on some other ground than indigenousness. The early colonists came over with motives no less colonial than the later. They did not come to be assimilated in an American melting-pot. They did not come to adopt the culture of the American Indian. They had not the smallest intention of "giving themselves without reservation" to the new country. They came to get freedom to live as they wanted. They came to escape from the stifling air and chaos of the old world; they came to make their fortune in a new land. They invented no new social framework. Rather they brought over bodily the old ways to which they had been accustomed. Tightly concentrated on a hostile frontier, they were conservative beyond belief. Their pioneer daring was reserved for the objective conquest of material resources. In their folkways, in their social and political institutions, they were, like every colonial people, slavishly imitative of the mother-country. So that, in spite of the "Revolution," our whole legal and political system remained more English than the English, petrified and unchanging, while in England law developed to meet the needs of the changing times."

 Early colonists did not come to the U.S to get away from their own culture to learn a new one. All they wanted was to live their lives freely. They no longer wanted to follow the rules of a leader. Instead the colonists wanted to bring their own culture to this new country and live it as they pleased in peace. Early colonists felt it was best to start a new life in a new country and grow to create a better living environment. Although they wanted a new world to live in, they proudly continued their old ways, the only way they knew. It was if they brought their motherland with them without all the chaos. They wanted everyone to know where they came from because hiding who you are is a sign of weakness. Colonists were proud to remain who they were because they could not pretend to be someone they weren't. They felt like heroes for being able to escape their own country to start a new life in a brand new country they had never seen, And so, began the hyphenated Americans.

This passage makes me feel proud about who I am today. Although I am American born, I still get to have my own culture being that my parents are foreign-born. I have a mixed culture all around because I grew up in the U.S. but my parents had their own and passed it down to me. I'm glad the early colonists did not leave their cultures behind to start a new one because America wouldn't be what it is today. There are people from all over the world in just one country and it's amazing how we can all come together to show how different we all are culturally.