|
Nintendo Kid posted:Until they become a disease carrier yes, which will happen when they cause an outbreak. Typhoid Mary wasn't locked up for being a disease carrier, she was locked up for being a professional cook who didn't believe in washing her hands after taking a crap, and for changing her name and going into hiding in order to avoid monitoring by health officials who were literally able to track her down just by following the trail of typhoid outbreaks.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:29 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Because legally there is a huge difference between punishment (e.g. criminal incarceration) and other forms of administrative restrictions. No there is not. Punishment does not hold legal meaning as a standard to decide what actions are ok under certains mechanisms and what aren't. Main Paineframe posted:Typhoid Mary wasn't locked up for being a disease carrier, she was locked up for being a professional cook who didn't believe in washing her hands after taking a crap, and for changing her name and going into hiding in order to avoid monitoring by health officials who were literally able to track her down just by following the trail of typhoid outbreaks. And she was only locked up for all of that because she was a disease spreader. "Regular Shithands Mary" never got locked up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Yes, as I assume it is on all of the other people that argue with Actus, like multiple pages of posters in other threads. quote:Anyways, there's a lot of stuff like that where the "legally...." statements are a cover for personal beliefs, such as racists who say "legally employers can't be racist so they aren't." and I had to deal with one of those today in one of my classes. Sorry for being on edge
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:47
|
|
.
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No there is not. Punishment does not hold legal meaning as a standard to decide what actions are ok under certains mechanisms and what aren't. every 8th Amendment decision ever posted:I disagree GreyPowerVan posted:like multiple pages of posters in other threads. many of whom are kind of dumb. you will notice that despite there being many lawyer goons, not many of them disagree... ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
twodot posted:Huh? "Legally employers can't be racist" is sometimes a cover for "I am a racist" ok sure. "Legally you can't quarantine someone for not being vaccinated" is a cover for what personal belief held by the person claiming to be the mother of a vaccinated child? Plus I am up to date on all my adult boosters...many "pro-vaccine" people forget that piece. Petri dish hypocrites.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:many of whom are kind of dumb. You haven't shown any proof, you're just randomly claiming things are punishment and not punishment with no reasonable standard applied. Here's a tip kid: the 8th amendment is about cruel and unusual punishment, not All Punishment Ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Beep boop I am lawbot I do not understand your hu-man emotions bleep bop
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Could you legally quarantine individuals for not being vaccinated if there was an serious area outbreak of whatever it is they weren't vaccinated against (for so long the outbreak continued, since obviously the purpose of the quarantine would be to stop it from spread)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You haven't shown any proof, you're just randomly claiming things are punishment and not punishment with no reasonable standard applied. Psst...part of analyzing whether something is a cruel and unusual punishment is analyzing whether it's even a punishment. See e.g sex offender registries, treatment of detainees. Most definitions of punishment come from 8th amendment reviews. You can also look at due process. Bit due process analysis is different in criminal, quasi criminal and civil contexts. Trying to help you understand the law here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Psst...part of analyzing whether something is a cruel and unusual punishment is analyzing whether it's even a punishment. Which is utterly irrelevant to the fact that many things are in fact punishments despite not requiring convictions. You hosed up royal here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Which is utterly irrelevant to the fact that many things are in fact punishments despite not requiring convictions. You hosed up royal here. No. Legally "punishment" has a very specific meaning. You are applying a lay definition to a legal argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No. Legally "punishment" has a very specific meaning. It does not. You just explained how it has a whole bunch of different meanings built up over literal centuries of case law. Try to keep up with your own posts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Are you serious?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Could you legally quarantine individuals for not being vaccinated if there was an serious area outbreak of whatever it is they weren't vaccinated against (for so long the outbreak continued, since obviously the purpose of the quarantine would be to stop it from spread)? Potentially, yeah, sure. There would be a lot going into the analysis, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Potentially, yeah, sure. They used to get fined, and this case was recently used to rule against the parents in a New York school district who wanted exemptions to the vaccine rules there. Judge Upholds Policy Barring Unvaccinated Students During Illnesses http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/23/nyregion/judge-upholds-policy-barring-unvaccinated-students-during-illnesses.html?_r=0 quote:In turning down all three families, Judge Kuntz cited a 1905 Supreme Court ruling that upheld a $5 fine for a Massachusetts man who disobeyed an order to be vaccinated during a smallpox outbreak, a case that helped establish the government’s right to require immunizations as a matter of public health.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Are you serious? You're the one making conflicting claims here, buddy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Beep boop I am lawbot I do not understand your hu-man emotions bleep bop
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You're the one making conflicting claims here, buddy. What do you find conflicting?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:What do you find conflicting? Everything you've said about definitions of "punishment". Among others that you've never actually given one out, and you've just claimed at alternate times that there is One Secure Definition, and that there are a bunch of definitions in various legal cases.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No there is not. Punishment does not hold legal meaning as a standard to decide what actions are ok under certains mechanisms and what aren't. They didn't lock her up for being a disease spreader, though. They locked her up for being "Shithands Mary" who couldn't stop rubbing her shithands all over people's food. GlyphGryph posted:Could you legally quarantine individuals for not being vaccinated if there was an serious area outbreak of whatever it is they weren't vaccinated against (for so long the outbreak continued, since obviously the purpose of the quarantine would be to stop it from spread)? There's not much point in quarantining uninfected, non-vaccinated individuals, except for their own safety in the case of an already out-of-control epidemic - but if there's a "serious area outbreak" of that disease, then either there's so many unvaccinated people that it's impractical to quarantine them all, or the disease is infecting vaccinated people too in which case why even bother singling out the unvaccinated? As a general rule of thumb, quarantine is done to prevent an outbreak, and the sick person is usually the one who gets quarantined.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Everything you've said about definitions of "punishment". Among others that you've never actually given one out, and you've just claimed at alternate times that there is One Secure Definition, and that there are a bunch of definitions in various legal cases. Except I didn't say any of that. I'm trying to help you understand the law here but you seem More interested in deliberately misinterpreting and trying to play gotcha. Under the law, "punishment" is a criminal law concept. The state can do things that suck (eg involuntary commitment) without it being legally a "punishment" how is this a hard concept for you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
I'm cool with nonjuducial nonpunishing involuntary confinement of parents who don't vaccinate their drat kids until they agree to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Except I didn't say any of that. I'm trying to help you understand the law here but you seem You're not trying to help anyone understand the law because you never actually talk about any of it. I don't understand why you're admitting to doing that but ok? This isn't true. Hope this helps. Otherwise you could avoid 8th amendment concerns by simply declaring things weren't being done under criminal proceedings. Main Paineframe posted:They didn't lock her up for being a disease spreader, though. They locked her up for being "Shithands Mary" who couldn't stop rubbing her shithands all over people's food. They did though. There were hundreds if not thousands of Shithands Marys in the city, only one of them was repeatedly spreading disease while doing it, she's the one who got locked up long term.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This isn't true. Hope this helps. Otherwise you could avoid 8th amendment concerns by simply declaring things weren't being done under criminal proceedings. Isn't the the US Government's actual argument for why torture doesn't fall under the eighth amendment because it's not punishment as long as you don't convict (or hell, even charge) the dude with anything before you start beating on him!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:They did though. There were hundreds if not thousands of Shithands Marys in the city, only one of them was repeatedly spreading disease while doing it, she's the one who got locked up long term. They were perfectly fine with her being a disease-spreading Shithands Mary working with people's laundry, though. It was only when she insisted on rubbing her poo poo hands all over people's food despite being informed of the dangers that she was quarantined.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They were perfectly fine with her being a disease-spreading Shithands Mary working with people's laundry, though. It was only when she insisted on rubbing her poo poo hands all over people's food despite being informed of the dangers that she was quarantined. Right, because she couldn't spread her disease nearly so often while doing that. Her punishment came solely from her making herself a major disease vector.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Right, because she couldn't spread her disease nearly so often while doing that. Her punishment came solely from her making herself a major disease vector. Right. Just being a potential disease vector wasn't enough to get her quarantined - it's only when she went out of her way to actively infect people that she was quarantined. There's no precedent for rounding up and perma-quarantining unvaccinated people just because they could potentially catch a disease sometime in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Right. Just being a potential disease vector wasn't enough to get her quarantined - it's only when she went out of her way to actively infect people that she was quarantined. There's no precedent for rounding up and perma-quarantining unvaccinated people just because they could potentially catch a disease sometime in the future. Refusing to vaccinate your kid for reasons other than medically being unable to be safely vaccinated is going out of your way to potentially infect people, which is precisely why sane states are able to keep them out of many public areas. It's important to note that most of the people who are unvaccinated are children unable to even get a shot themselves, so naturally you'd focus on going after the parents responsible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Isn't the the US Government's actual argument for why torture doesn't fall under the eighth amendment because it's not punishment as long as you don't convict (or hell, even charge) the dude with anything before you start beating on him! Yes. For it to trigger a "punishment" analysis, it needs to be as punishment for a criminal conviction. Hell, even things like sex offender registry are considered "collateral consequences" not punishments. Without a conviction, you have a due process issue. In the case of the detainees, the "due process" is pretty sketchy. The Hamdan, Boumedine, and Hamdi cases lay out a good analysis of where those boundaries are. (However, I would counter that even if shoving hummus up a guy's rear end isn't unconstitutional because "our lawyer reviewed it and he had notice and a hearing and we're still going to shove hummus up his rear end" I would still submit that it's illegal under laws of armed conflict. Nintendo Kid posted:This isn't true. Hope this helps. Otherwise you could avoid 8th amendment concerns by simply declaring things weren't being done under criminal proceedings. see e.g. civil commitment. hope this helps. Also see above. GlyphGryph posted:Could you legally quarantine individuals for not being vaccinated if there was an serious area outbreak of whatever it is they weren't vaccinated against (for so long the outbreak continued, since obviously the purpose of the quarantine would be to stop it from spread)? Good question, potentially, maybe...but it would be a ridiculously fact specific inquiry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:
Yeah you're not smart enough to understand that just calling something a civil commitment doesn't mean a court will agree with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Refusing to vaccinate your kid for reasons other than medically being unable to be safely vaccinated is going out of your way to potentially infect people, which is precisely why sane states are able to keep them out of many public areas. no. you're imputing a criminal mens rea on the parents that doesn't exist. The parents aren't saying "let's not vaccinate because I want Baxxlee to be patient zero and lead to the downfall of this suburban hell." they're doing it because they, incorrectly, believe that it is in the best interest of their child. The state gets to ban unvaccinated kids from schools because they have an interest in preserving public health and, in the case of schools, an in loco parentis obligation to the students. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 13:01 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yeah you're not smart enough to understand that just calling something a civil commitment doesn't mean a court will agree with it. google civil commitment. here's a little taste. first link. http://www.doc.wa.gov/community/sexoffenders/civilcommitment.asp but please, keep calling me stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:no. Ignorance is no excuse for crime, dude. Parents have gotten in trouble for killing or severely harming kids with vegan diets who legit thought it wasn't a problem, parental idiocy isn't a get out of ~punishment~ free card. ActusRhesus posted:google civil commitment. Ok yeah, you're really stupid, thanks for giving me permission. Just calling something civil commitment, again, does not mean it actually is. And ps it is in fact still punishment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Refusing to vaccinate your kid for reasons other than medically being unable to be safely vaccinated is going out of your way to potentially infect people, which is precisely why sane states are able to keep them out of many public areas. Just like when they permanently quarantined everyone in New York who hadn't gotten their typhoid vaccine yet, in response to the typhoid outbreaks caused by Shithands Mary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:no. I guess that's a whole different can of worms, just like that woman that made her granddaughter literally run around the house until she died. "I didn't KNOW she would die from it!!" It happened fairly close to where I live. http://www.aol.com/article/2014/11/14/running-death-grandmother-wants-charge-dismissed/20993726/ EDIT: I don't know where the line should be drawn for intent mattering or not, and I'm not even going to start on that. This just reminded me of the story that is tangentially related so I posted it. SSJ_naruto_2003 fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Ignorance is no excuse for crime, dude. I... I don't even...you understand that ActuRhesus is a practicing criminal attorney, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Just like when they permanently quarantined everyone in New York who hadn't gotten their typhoid vaccine yet, in response to the typhoid outbreaks caused by Shithands Mary. Now you're just being actusrhesus. The whole idea is once the morons knuckle under and accept vaccination they can go free. Discendo Vox posted:I... I don't even...you understand that ActuRhesus is a practicing criminal attorney, right? He sure doesn't seem aware of actual law for one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
I believe that consuming food and providing adequate clothing and shelter is not in the best interests of my child, these are my beliefs and I'd rather the state not infringe my right to withhold provisions which I believe are harmful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Now you're just being actusrhesus. The whole idea is once the morons knuckle under and accept vaccination they can go free. Are you more aware of the law? Even when I disagree with actus, I'm mostly just disagreeing that the laws should work that way, more than the fact that they do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:29 |
|
|
If I were to merely provide food, clothing and shelter, then my children would not learn basic survival techniques which would be beneficial in this time of financial and political turmoil. To this end, I am drawing on research conducted by Dodge and Aefool (1996), which posits that children do not require food, clothing or shelter. It is irrelevant if this piece of research was later refuted on the basis of questionable ethics or scientific practices, or if the publishing journal later retracted the article.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 01:31
|
|