Michael Cicconetti

While it does seem like a cycle or that "history bends towards justice", let us remember that history will not bend on it's own. We are the agents of history. It will not passively "cycle back" or "bend itself", we must make actions towards reformatory justice.

"But as I learned in the shadow of an empty steel plant more than two decades ago, while you can’t necessarily bend history to your will, you can do your part to see that, in the words of Dr. King, it “bends toward justice.” So I hope that you will stand up and do what you can to serve your community, shape our history and enrich both your own life and the lives of others across this country." - President Barack Obama - http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1886571...

When was the cycle ever on the side of reformatory, at large? I've only seen it in local pockets of municipalities.

The other option is the standard one: jail. So, I don't see anything negative in it.

Case law has further defined "cruel and unusual punishment". The Supreme Court decision in Furman v. Georgia established that punishment must not: "by its severity be degrading to human dignity", "a severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion," "a severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society," or "a severe punishment that is patently unnecessary." severe punishment that is patently unnecessary.

I think it would be difficult to argue that any of Michael Cicconetti's creative punishments are "severe". Conversely, they appear to be relatively lenient compared to orthodox punishments. Additionally, the punishments are arguably the opposite of arbitrary, being designed to match the specifics of the crimes.

Courts have ruled that punishment must be both cruel AND unusual to qualify. These sentences are unusual but not cruel. Prison may be cruel but is not unusual.

I wonder if the fact that he offers it as a choice mitigates some of the concern.

According to the wiki article, the sentences aren't mandatory. They're presented as a choice where one choice is a period of time in jail and the other is an action in the community and a shorter period of time in jail.

IANAL but, I suspect that since the full length jail sentence is considered neither cruel nor unusual and is an option for the convicted person, that should mean that if they choose a different option, it can't be cruel because they found that option more pleasant than one that is already determined to not be cruel. I guess this assumes that people will tend to choose the less cruel punishment given two options, but that seems like a safe assumption.

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

FTA:

> During heavy blizzards, he ordered defendants to clear snow at a retirement home.

I didn't check them all. This one however, I find dubious. Because essentially he is putting these defendants in harmful, dangerous weather.

Correlation, causation, something, something.

Or the national rate is far from uniform. Google tells me the Ohio State rate is 27.1 percent. I wonder what it's like in neighboring counties, or for people in the same area who get a different judge.

If you click the source for that 10% number, it's the judge himself.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/ohio-judge-unusual-punishments-peo...

> Nationally, the recidivism rate after incarceration is over 75 percent, with close to 50 percent of ex-convicts committing a new crime that can land them back within a year, according to a 2014 report by the U.S. Department of Justice. But Cicconetti claims to have a recidivism rate of only 10 percent.

I'd like to know what the DOJ's numbers would say for his area... and similar counties in the area.

the same should be done when you own a car

That may just limit gun ownership to psycopaths who have zero empathy.

Perhaps also everyone who chooses to not own a gun should be compelled to go to the morgue to see corpses of the victims of crimes, so they understand the evil of bystanding.

A friend applied this sort of thinking to teaching them to not run in the road. She took the kids to look at roadkill and told them when they asked what it is, she said that's what happens when an animal is in the road and gets hit by a car.

They were careful around the road without shouting or force.

This is how every boundary violation could be taught. "Here's this thing. Here's what happened to it and here are the effects. Any questions?" (Herein: "the pattern")

I'm now realizing this is maybe why we had the silly "This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?" campaign.

Can we redo that campaign with every law & in a clear, literal,and real way children can understand? "Here's this/these living being/beings. Here's what it's like when they experience <violation>. Any questions? Call 800-555-1212 to register your question and ask the world on our livestream feed!"

Yeah...and let's do it live, with the goal of converting the entire legal code and precedents into something people can actually use.

We could also apply "the pattern" to universal life lessons, like solidarity > charity, coevolution > coexistence, mutualism > competition, and what the universal needs for thriving are.

> "Judges are elected officials in the US"

Depends on the jurisdiction.

You will prefer spending 9 years in prison instead of 3 weeks doing random silly alternative. Because of all the benefits that come with being in prison.

Did I read this correctly?

This makes no sense.

Judges are biased, they hand out harsher sentences before lunch than after lunch, they also enforce a legal system with the threat of violence delivered by the law enforcement onto people and yet their own criminality is they don't get people to sign a contract agreeing to the laws of the land, and they don't educate people in the laws of the land. So you are setup to fail, no better than Hitler in my books.

People smoke weed for a variety of reasons, but one of them is to reduce stress which is caused by the GIRK pathways releasing potassium from the cells into the blood stream, hyperpolarisation. Try it by swapping sodium chloride with potassium chloride and you wont be half as stressed with modern life, your intelligence will increase and your physical performance will increase. The take away is this, sodium causes cells to take on water, potassium causes cells to take on glucose, amino acids and other nutrients. Sodium starves the body at the cellular level.

Well there is the issue of "cruel and unusual" punishments being unconstitutional. But his seem too whimsical for that. I mean, the "pepper spray" was actually water.

Although these punishments do not meet the high bar of "cruel and unusual punishment" as defined in the Furman v. Georgia decision, there is still the issue that judges are generally expected to act in an orthodox way.

For punishment to be an effective and fair deterrent, it must be predictable. In much the same way as judges in common law courts follow precedent in interpreting law, they follow sentencing trends in determining sentences. Additionally, their decisions are subject to the judgement of higher courts (appellate courts; Supreme Court).

Very odd that a judge, working on behalf of the United States legal system, would create a new punishment specifically in response to a citizen calling police officers "pigs", which is not illegal in the United States.

No.

Would be interesting to just make a parallel 'moral-social' legal system, where the public could non-bindingly find people guilty of a crime against society and ask them to do something to make it right.

A million people all sharing "Bob did a bad thing, and I'll shun him until he does X" would be a very strong incentive for action. I'd imagine employers would soon start looking up prospective candidates on this service before hiring.

This is the problem with unregulated power. If you do stuff like this judge does and have good judgement the outcome can be very positive. But it can also go horribly wrong if done by the wrong person with the wrong motivation. Same could be said for dictators. A well run dictatorship can probably be managed better than a democracy but it can also go very wrong if power gets into the wrong hands.

That’s why in the end we are in the long run probably better off with a set of rules that make sure that things are predictable and the same for all people.

Please read the article! He gives them the choice between the "standard" punishment (days in jail and such) and his "unorthodox punishments". And the later are, as close as possible, focused on repairing the problem, not punishing.

If you click the reference, it's the judge himself making the 10% claim.

^^ Ross Ulbricht

The crux of the article is not cruelty to animals.