DIYbanter - View Single Post

J. Clarke[_2_]

In article ,
says...

J. Clarke wrote:

On the one hand, "It's my school and if I want to whip a student,
it's my right to do so!"

On the other hand, parents generally have no choice as to which
school they can send their kids - the government school is the only
one available. Further, the law mandates school attendance.

The call is really "did the teacher act according to the disciplinary
rules that he or she has been provided by her employer". If so and if
the rules do not require an unlawful act or one that might constitutie
"cruel and unusual punishment", then the teacher shouldn't be fired
for following the rules no matter how much the parent objects.

The discipline may very well be "cruel" and be legal.

Please show where in the post to which you were responding any statement
to the contrary.

The Constitution says
"cruel AND unusual", not "cruel OR unusual." The courts have held that where
a particular punishment is codified into law or rule, such as public
whipping in Maryland, the punishment is not "unusual" and, hence, legal.

Another one of your ancient rulings? I can't find anything that
suggests that such a case has ever been before the Supreme Court.

Further Justice Blackmun for one does not make your fine distinction
that the punshment must be both cruel and unusual. The law does not
apply Boolean algebra.

And the Federal courts _have_ ruled that a convicted felon cannot be
whipped however it was an eighth circuit ruling which was not appealed.

There appears to be a multipart test--codification is one part but it is
not the whole.