Unusual punishments
 

I am against cruel punishments but I don't see any reason to be against unusual punishments. Can anyone tell me if there is something bad about unusual punishments? :confused:

There's a pretty wide latitude for things that could be considered "unusual" punishments. That would be limited only by the creativity of the sentencing judge short of cruelty. It might not be such a good idea to give judges such discretion in sentencing, would you want to be ordered to marry your SO if you had been about to break up with her (or even felt ambivalent about the idea) for example?

The law can only be quantitatively fair if it's standardized. I'm all for creativity, but if every judge is free to make up "stand on your head" or "swim 100 laps" as punishments, how can we really know that justice is being applied fairly and evenly without respect to the criminal's background?

I used to have a theory that "cruel and unusual punishment" had to be read the same way as the other phrase in the same sentence of the 8th amendment, "no excessive fines." In other words, it's a proportionality rule: punishments have to fit the crime, so you can't behead someone for jaywalking, or torture people for property crimes. But that's not how the Supreme Court has been reading it.

A judge rules that a thief who stole from a store stand outside for ? days wearing a sign that states "I stole from this store". Cruel? Not so much. Unusual? Perhaps. Might make him think twice.
An 18 yr dating a 16 yo w/consent, convicted of rape - "minor sex offender". Good luck trying to find a place to live after you get out of jail.

Some states have changed their age of consent laws, and brought them more up to date because of this type of thing, but I think they may need even more adjustment to prevent these types of injustices. For example in my home state of Florida, the age of consent is 18 if the older partner is 24 years of age or older, but 16 if the older partner is below the age of 24.