Reports of migrants held in detention in the patrol facilities in Texas sparked public outrage during the Trump administration. Claims were made about the poor conditions experienced by detainees in the patrol facilities. Elijah Cummings, a Democratic Representative from Maryland at the time, blamed the Trump administration for “open contempt of basic human decency.” Can one really say that the conditions that immigrants experienced in the patrol facilities in Texas is cruel punishment? I believe not.
Let me explain - by definition, cruel punishment is one that is very harsh and too severe for the crime committed. Harsh and severe are the words to look at. The conditions ICE detainees experienced were not meant to be harsh or severe. The major concern was the overcrowding,e which was something that the authorities were working to solve.
A legal definition of cruel punishment is: punishment that is offensive to the contemporary morality or jurisprudence (as by being degrading, inflicting unnecessary and intentional pain, or being disproportionate to the offense). Relating this definition with the ICE detainees case leaves no doubt that their situation did not amount to cruel punishment. The overcrowding issue and other mild concerns that were reported were not intentional.
The American #Constitution provides four principles which determines whether or not a particular punishment can be called cruel. The principles are:
Cruel punishment by its severity, aims to degrade human dignity.
Cruel punishment is executed wholly in an arbitrary fashion.
A cruel punishment is clearly not accepted throughout the society
A cruel punishment is patently unnecessary
Immigrant officials worked to rectify conditions swiftly. The facilities were simply overwhelmed by the increase of people crossing the borders. The conditions that ICE detainees faced met some, but not all of these thresholds, so definitely not cruel punishment.
