One of the areas of judicial theory that has amused me from time to time is the "no cruel and unusual punishment" sections of rights. However, in this initial case specifically for ironclad Murder One with no weasel doubts, what if that requirement were lifted? Criminal "gets to do" all kinds of cruel and unusual things to his victim, and then we need to "see to his rights" afterward? One really fun case consists of "unusual punishments less cruel than the original crime". And since the original crime was something like chopping their legs off and painting diagrams with knives on the victim's chests, it's hard to get much more C&U than that.
So for the "softie" DC version of an experiment, what if the criminal were sentenced to write valid sentences until he simply passes out from fatigue? (Spelling mistakes punished on a sliding scale, no asdf asdf etc allowed, etc.)
In what is commonly called "first world problem", we get to say "nah, I'm tired, I don't want to do that". But what if you simply had to? Has anyone here ever written until they simply passed out near the keyboard?
Edit: Writing code (even with minor syntax errors, if it's still recognizable code) counts!
