Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Thoughts on the eight amendment:

This amendment, although commonsense to us now, is a very vital one to our personal liberty. It bars the government from ruling fines that are not fitting to the crime, from issuing a bond that is to extreme for the crime, and of course from using cruel and unusual punishment in sentencing a criminal.

This amendment protects us from being gorged with fines for crimes that are not consider serious. For instance if you throw a cigarette butt on the sidewalk and happened to be charged with littering there is a maxi um fine that can be imposed. If not a judge who lost his parents to lung cancer could in theory fine you a million dollars.

Keep in mind that bail is not a right. A judge can deny you bail if the crime is severe or if you pose a flight risk

Cruel and unusually punishment can mean different things to different people. A vegan could agree that it is cruel not to offer a vegetarian dish at the prison cafeteria if he wanted to! The most controversial issue with this is of course the death penalty. I personally believe that in certain cases capital punishment is the most just outcome. My only qualm with it is if an innocent person is executed. Although this appears to be rare it is irreversible. I have faith in due process and although it is ultimately subject to the possibility of human error, I believe that such a sentence would never be given without justification.




Westchester Judge Slapped For Excessive Fines
Posted on Thursday, 30 of July , 2009 at 2:23 pm
BEDFORD—A Westchester County town justice has been admonished for imposing fines that exceeded the amount allowed by law.



The state Commission on Judicial Conduct determined that Charles G. Banks, a justice in the Bedford Town Court in Westchester County, had imposed fines that exceeded the maximum permitted by law in more than 200 cases in which defendants were convicted of seat belt violations and speeding.



The commission found that in so doing, the Banks violated those Rules Governing Judicial Conduct which require a judge to respect, comply with, be faithful to and maintain professional competence in the law.



The Commission found that Judge Banks’ “wrongful practice resulted in financial detriment to the defendants and in significant financial benefit to his town.”



It was stipulated that the judge did not know how the fines were distributed between the State and the town. Upon learning of the impropriety as a result of the Commission’s investigation, the judge took steps to initiate and process refunds for defendants who had paid excessive amounts in 2006 and 2007.



Judge Banks, whose term expires this December has stipulated that he will not run for reelection.



He was served with a formal written complaint dated Feb. 26 containing one charge. The administrator of the commission, the judge and the judge’s attorney entered into an agreed statement of facts on May 13 stipulating to the facts and sanction and waiving further submissions and oral argument. The commission accepted the Agreed Statement on June 17.



An admonishment is the lowest level of public judicial discipline and amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist and a mark on Banks’ permanent judicial record.

http://www.scjc.state.ny.us/Determinations/B/banks.pdf 7-30-09