“If I only knew then what I know now, I would have … dumped your body in the back seat, dropped you off in Toad Creek, and made it look like a rape and murder.”
“There’s one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I’m not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts.”
隧道 发表于 2014-10-3 06:30
第一个简单，监狱本来就是失去自由的地方，而且是要害特殊部门。监狱的理由也正当，成立。
第二个也简单， ...
南京老萝卜 发表于 2014-10-3 10:47
也来参与一下。
第一个，大胡子应该剪掉。理由是：监狱里的平等就是大家平等。
隧道 发表于 2014-10-3 11:26
第三并不是另找理由，而是美国有个不能因言获罪的前例。
如果法院判他自己写出来威胁，自己看，或者和别 ...
南京老萝卜 发表于 2014-10-3 10:47
也来参与一下。
第一个，大胡子应该剪掉。理由是：监狱里的平等就是大家平等。
mezhan 发表于 2014-10-7 07:49
拒接就是表态啊. 维持联邦上诉法院的裁决 - 禁止同性婚姻违宪.
南京老萝卜 发表于 2014-10-3 10:47
也来参与一下。
第一个，大胡子应该剪掉。理由是：监狱里的平等就是大家平等。
David A. Curran, a deputy attorney general from Little Rock, arguing for the state in the case of Holt v. Hobbs, took his turn before the Justices after two lawyers on the other side had repeatedly complained that the state simply had no real justification for banning all beards on inmates, even for those who might want insist that they need one for religious reasons.
Curran tried to offer two rationales: the policy keeps prisoners from hiding anything dangerous or illegal in their chin hair, and it helps the guards identify the inmates as they move about in the prison yard or working in the farm fields. (A third rationale, put forward only briefly, is that “prisoners are capable of a lot of mischief.”) But the more he talked, the more the skepticism spread across the bench.
Clearly, though, his worst moments came when Justice Alito quietly probed both of the primary arguments.
As to the contraband-hiding problem, Alito suggested that the prison guards could just hand an inmate a comb and have him run it through the beard, “to see if a SIM card — or a revolver — falls out.” It produced a broad wave of laughter in the courtroom, at the quite ridiculous image of a gun being stashed in a half-inch beard. (There were enough modernists in the audience to know that a SIM card is a tiny electronic chip that identifies the assigned user of a cellphone; cellphones are not allowed in Arkansas prisons.)
As to the altered-identify problem, Alito tried verbally to imagine how an inmate wishing to enter the wrong barracks after a work period outside would — while out in the field — produce a razor, shave the beard, switch photo ID cards with an inmate who looked like him beardless, and go into a barracks different from the one specified on that ID card. That, too, was such a stretch that it taxed credulity.
Dracula 发表于 2014-10-8 03:06
@隧道
第一个大胡子的案子的Oral Argument 刚结束不久，我刚刚看到的报道，看来阿肯色的监狱要输。他们 ...
As in the state’s brief, security concerns were at the heart of Curran’s argument. Unfortunately for him, the Justices were openly dismissive of two of those concerns. Addressing the argument that the beard ban was intended to prevent inmates from hiding contraband such as a SIM card or a weapon in their beards, Ginsburg asked why the state didn’t have a similar rule for hair, where it might be easier to conceal something. Justice Stephen Breyer (who was uncharacteristically quiet today, perhaps because he was feeling under the weather) tried to nail down whether the state had any actual examples of an inmate in a state where beards are permitted hiding anything in a beard. “There is no example,” Curran conceded. But even if it were a possibility, Alito queried, why couldn’t the state just give a bearded inmate a special comb and require him to comb it to prove that he isn’t hiding anything? Drawing laughter from spectators, Alito predicted that, if an inmate is trying to hide a SIM card or a “tiny revolver” or “anything else you think can be hidden in a half-inch beard,” it will fall out. When Curran countered with possible obstacles, Alito appeared incredulous, asking him, “You really think that will be difficult, to say here’s a comb, comb your beard?”
The Justices spent even less time on the possibility raised by the state’s brief that it needed to prohibit beards to prevent an escaped inmate from eluding capture by shaving off his beard and changing his appearance. Curran tried to fend off questions from Scalia by explaining that prison officials had not testified on this issue in the lower courts. That tactic might have worked in the lower courts, but not with Scalia, who instead seemed to regard the question as one of common sense. The solution, Scalia shot back, is to “just take a photograph of him before he grows his half-inch beard. . . . It seems to me it’s . . . obvious.”
Curran also advanced a third justification for the ban on beards: the need to be able to identify prisoners while they are in prison. Prisons in Arkansas, he emphasized repeatedly, are unique from other states that would allow Holt to have a beard. In particular, he explained, inmates go out in the fields to work during the day and then return to their assigned barracks. Prison officials need to be able to prevent a prisoner from shaving off his beard and switching prison IDs with another prisoner so that he can gain access to (and potentially cause trouble in) another barracks. Here too, though, he found a skeptical audience in Alito, who peppered him with factual questions and observed that, among other things, such a scenario would require the inmate “to find someone who also looks like him” and lives in the barracks to which the inmate wants to gain illicit access.
During his short rebuttal, Laycock seized on the Justices’ apparent doubts whether the state truly needs to ban beards for religious reasons based on its need to identify inmates inside the prison. He reminded them that, for example, inmates can also change their appearances by shaving their heads, mustaches, or beards allowed for medical reasons – which they have every right to do. And although it remains unclear precisely what an opinion in his client’s favor might look like, by the time Laycock sat down, a majority on the Court seemed to agree with him.
Dracula 发表于 2014-10-7 10:24
不完全是。如果最高法院接这个案子，而且判同性婚姻是宪法权利的话，同性婚姻在全美国都会变为合法。现在 ...
南京老萝卜 发表于 2014-10-3 10:47
也来参与一下。
第一个，大胡子应该剪掉。理由是：监狱里的平等就是大家平等。
If I only knew then what I know now...I would have smothered your ass with a pillow. Dumped your body in the back seat. Dropped you off in Toad Creek and made it look like a rape and murder.
There's one way to love ya, but a thousand ways to kill ya,
And I'm not going to rest until your body is a mess,
Soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts.Hurry up and die bitch.
JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr Elwood,...I'm trying to figure out what exactly the level of intent you want is. So one, the very, very highest level might be I affirmatively want to place this person in fear; that's why I'm doing what I'm doing. All right? There's a step down from that which is: I don't want to do that; I'm just fulfilling my artistic fantasies, whatever you want to call it; but I know that I am going to place this person in fear. All right? Is that what—which intent do you want?
MR ELWOOD: The second...That if you know that you are placing someone in fear by what you are doing, that is enough to satisfy our version of—
JUSTICE KAGAN: How about you just take it a step down more but not get to the government's. How about if you don't know to a certainty, but you know that there is a substantial probability that you will place that person in fear, which is what I take it we would usually mean when we talk about recklessness?
JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr Dreeben, you are asking us to go down you know, it's not purpose, it's not knowledge of causing fear, it's not a conscious disregard of causing fear, it's just that you should have known that you were going to cause fear, essentially. And that's not the kind of standard that we typically use in the First Amendment...[W]e typically say that the First Amendment requires a kind of a buffer zone to ensure that even stuff that is wrongful maybe is permitted because we don't want to chill innocent behavior.
Dracula 发表于 2014-12-4 01:50
威胁前妻的那个案子前天结束了oral arguments，法官们会怎么判还不清楚，这是Economist对这个案子的报道 ...
| 欢迎光临 爱吱声 (http://129.226.69.186/bbs/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.2 |