On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:48:41 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Secret Squirrel" wrote in message
.97.131...


It can be interpreted in many ways. However some of the parts that are not
really subject to interpretation are the right to a trial, and the
guarantee of protections from cruel and unusual punishments.

I strongly suspect that 228 years ago that if which you are referring to was
pointed at those that may try to carry over old rules, laws, and habits from
the "Old Country". I also strongly suspect that the rules were written to
protect those that may or may not be innocent from the common man that did
not have the fairness or sense to tell if the accused was guilty or not when
caught.
That said, If I see the crime happen, I do not need a jury to decide if I
really saw it or not.

Do you refer your case to a jury when you correct your child?


Leon,

You are falling into a trap. There seems to be some confusion here
equating the act of *apprehending* a person suspected of committing a crime
with an act of punishment for committing said crime. A jury conviction is
not required to apprehend a suspected perpetrator of a crime. If the
suspect resists apprehension, then reasonable force to effect that
apprehension does not equate to punishment. If the perp (OK, the suspected
perp) is allowed to resist and simply walk away, the amount of arrests for
crimes will plummet and crime will skyrocket as criminals realize that with
a slight amount of resistance they can escape, if they are careful to cover
their tracks, they risk little chance of future apprehension.

Re-iterating: Apprehension is not punishment. Death because one has
resisted being detained is not punishment, it is a consequence of one's
actions. i.e., no resistance, no death, regardless of the ineptness of the
one doing the detaining.