tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post771340091062553073..comments2024-03-28T18:17:00.135-05:00Comments on Computational Complexity: Cruel XOR unusual PunishmentLance Fortnowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06752030912874378610noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-13157369476751898252012-12-27T00:42:27.825-06:002012-12-27T00:42:27.825-06:00Happened across your blog while searching for comp...Happened across your blog while searching for complexity theory stuff and even though this is months old I feel obligated to comment here.<br /><br />I think it quite clear that when the Founders said "and" here they really meant it. You claim that common sense dictates otherwise, but people keep forgetting that the Bill of Rights is motivated by actual or feared abuses of power by British colonial authorities, still fresh in people's minds in 1789, and not by modern liberal sensitivities. This particular section is borrowed from the English Bill of Rights, which was instituted in reaction to James II's abuses. They weren't concerned about ensuring that universal sentencing guidelines were sufficiently humane, they were concerned about arbitrary abuse of judicial and executive powers- finding relatively trivial offenses you can convict your enemies for and then handing out excessive sentences.<br /><br />If a judge decides to sentence a jaywalker to sing "I'm a little teapot" his unusual but non-cruel punishment raises no 8th Amendment issues. If a state votes to summarily execute all jaywalkers, the 8th Amendment wasn't meant to stop them; the resulting punishment, being applied to all offenders, is not "unusual" in the relevant sense. But a judge is not free to say "I know we normally let jaywalkers off with a $5 fine, but I really dislike this guy and by jaywalking he put himself in my power, so I'm going to have him drawn and quartered."<br /><br />The Founders did not mean to put any limits on governments' (especially state and local governments') abilities to be as draconian about sentencing guidelines as they please. As far as I can tell, the first person to even suggest that sentences applied to all offenders could be "cruel and unusual" was Ohio congressman John Bingham in 1866, grasping for ways to override the unjust laws the South was passing after the Civil War.<br /><br />I'm not claiming that draconian punishments are OK, just that lying to ourselves about the content of the Constitution is not the way to resolve such disagreements. If we think a federal punishment or a punishment in our own state, county, etc is too cruel, we need to resolve that through the democratic process. If for some reason we think that's insufficient and feel we need to override the political process to keep some jurisdictions from coming up with punishments that offend our sensibilities, we need to pass another Amendment that clearly codifies this; the Constitution was made to be amended. If we can't produce the kind of consensus that an amendment requires, it's a dishonest abuse of power to read our preferences into the Constitution as the Warren court did in Furman v. Georgia and as the Supreme Court has continued to do as evidenced by Kennedy v. Louisiana.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-72074578630244445692012-10-09T06:13:53.534-05:002012-10-09T06:13:53.534-05:00What Logic did the founders use? I don't know,...What Logic did the founders use? I don't know, but Gödel found a loophole in the Constitution. From <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/28/050228crat_atlarge" rel="nofollow">this 2005 article</a> on The New Yorker:<br /><br /><i>"So naïve and otherworldly was the great logician that Einstein felt obliged to help look after the practical aspects of his life. One much retailed story concerns Gödel’s decision after the war to become an American citizen. The character witnesses at his hearing were to be Einstein and Oskar Morgenstern, one of the founders of game theory. Gödel took the matter of citizenship with great solemnity, preparing for the exam by making a close study of the United States Constitution. On the eve of the hearing, he called Morgenstern in an agitated state, saying he had found an “inconsistency” in the Constitution, one that could allow a dictatorship to arise. Morgenstern was amused, but he realized that Gödel was serious and urged him not to mention it to the judge, fearing that it would jeopardize Gödel’s citizenship bid."</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-6962961912624230962012-10-08T14:14:05.539-05:002012-10-08T14:14:05.539-05:00It's hard to think of a single mathematical de...It's hard to think of a single mathematical definition of a reasonable age that hasn't changed over time. Euclid defined a point as 'that which has no part', a line as 'breadthless length', and a number as a 'multitude composed of units'. None of these, evocative though they are, still serves its purpose, and indeed, the concept of number itself has widened so far that I'm not sure it can admit a single all-encompassing definition of any use.<br /><br />And while the consequences of changes in definition are rarely dire, they are often profound - again, just think of the history of what 'number' has meant to mathematicians.Richardhttp://redundantandpleonastic.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-27947462904616782362012-10-08T14:11:01.387-05:002012-10-08T14:11:01.387-05:001) As I said IANAL
2) As I said- Metric confuses ...1) As I said IANAL<br /><br />2) As I said- Metric confuses me<br /><br />3) More seriously, no other state had life-in-prison for 650 grams.<br />Thats what I meant by `not a lot legally'- though I admit that if<br />some other state has 20-30 years for it, yup, thats a lot legally.<br />(I do not know what other states do.)GASARCHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06134382469361359081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-17247733590405925732012-10-08T11:04:24.899-05:002012-10-08T11:04:24.899-05:00a pound and a half of cocaine isn't a lot lega...a pound and a half of cocaine isn't a lot legally?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-31132679732201432862012-10-08T10:04:03.186-05:002012-10-08T10:04:03.186-05:00A computer scientist walks into a drug lab and ord...A computer scientist walks into a drug lab and orders 650 grams of cocaine. The teller's eyes widen a little at the size of the order, but he quickly fills the request. The next month, the computer scientist returns and orders 6,500 grams of cocaine. The teller looks at her in shock and says, "That is an impressive purchase. Even relative to your earlier orders, that is an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com