Supreme Court to be cruel and unusual punishment. As a result, Eighth Amendment challenges to the death penalty have focused on the methods used to carry out executions, whether certain offenders for example, juveniles or the mentally retarded should be subject to the sentence and whether death sentences are decided in a fair manner and by an impartial jury.
Home Eighth Amendment. The Text Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The Meaning No Excessive Bail: The first portion of the Eighth Amendment concerns bail— the money paid by a defendant in a criminal case in exchange for his or her release from jail before trial. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn. The representative might not have considered whether a particular punishment was in any way cruel or unusual as he cast his vote for ratification.
Conversely, the representative might have cast his vote for ratification primarily because he believed that a certain punishment would be deemed cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment. No documentary evidence from the state ratification proceedings reflects which punishments particular representatives found permissible or impermissible under the Eighth Amendment. Nor is there much evidence indicating that the Framers intended their understanding of the Constitution to be binding on subsequent generations.
Another criticism of the narrow, originalist approach emanates from the language of the Eighth Amendment itself. Proponents of this viewpoint observe that the Eighth Amendment is written in very abstract language. It prohibits "excessive" bail and "excessive" fines, and does not set forth any specific amount that judges may use as a yardstick when setting bail or imposing fines.
Although it prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, it does not enumerate which criminal penalties should be abolished. The Framers could have drafted the Eighth Amendment to explicitly outlaw certain barbaric punishments. They obviously were familiar with ways to draft constitutional provisions with such specificity. The Framers could have employed similar concrete language for the Eighth Amendment, some critics reason, but did not choose to do so. Although there is not enough evidence to determine conclusively the appropriate manner in which the Framers expected or hoped that the Constitution would be interpreted, the origins of the Eighth Amendment are fairly clear.
The notion that the severity of a punishment should bear some relationship to the severity of the criminal offense is one of the oldest in Anglo-Saxon law. In , the MAGNA CHARTA , the ancient charter of English liberties, provided, "A free man shall not be [fined] for a small offense unless according to the measure of the offense, and for a great offense he shall be [fined] according to the greatness of the offense" ch.
By the seventeenth century, England had extended this principle to punishments that called for incarceration. In one case, the King's Court ruled that "imprisonment ought always to be according to the quality of the offence" Hodges v. Humkin , 2 Bulst. In , the principle of proportionality was incorporated into the English Bill of Rights, which used language that the Framers of the U.
Constitution later borrowed for the Eighth Amendment: "[E]xcessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, or cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The concerns underlying the Eighth Amendment were voiced in two state-ratification conventions. In Massachusetts, one representative expressed "horror" that Congress could "determine what kind of punishments shall be inflicted on persons convicted of crimes" and that nothing restrained Congress "from inventing the most cruel and unheard-of punishments" that would make "racks" and "gibbets" look comparatively "mild" as quoted in FURMAN V.
The concerns expressed by these representatives were legitimate in light of the punishments authorized by many states at the time the Eighth Amendment was ratified. These punishments ranged from whipping, branding, and the pillory to various methods of mutilation, including the slitting of nostrils and the removal of body parts. The death penalty was also prevalent. If James Madison or the other Framers intended to preserve these forms of punishment, they kept their intentions to themselves.
Supreme Court continues to consider specific instances of punishment in order to determine whether they violate the Eighth Amendment. In Hope v. Pelzer , U. Use of a hitching post, according to the Court, violated the Eighth Amendment. The prisoner in Hope brought a civil action against the officers, who claimed that they were protected by the doctrine of qualified IMMUNITY , which applies when state actors are not put on notice that their conduct violates judicial precedent or other federal or state law.
Precedent from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes the state of Alabama, was clear that this type of punishment was unlawful. Because the officers had had notice that their actions were unlawful, qualified immunity did not apply. Other punishments that have been the subject of Eighth Amendment challenges are the socalled "three strikes and you're out" laws, which increase punishment for repeat offenders.
Under such laws, when an offender commits his or her third crime, the severity of the crime is elevated. Several defendants, particularly in California, have been sentenced to lengthy prison terms after committing relatively minor offenses. In Lockyer v. Andrade , U. However, the defendant had received two previous convictions, and when he was convicted on two counts of petty theft, the counts were considered his "strikes" three and four. The trial court elevated the charges to felonies and sentenced the defendant to life in prison with no possibility of PAROLE for 50 years.
The case of Ewing v. The cruel and unusual punishment clause also applies to conditions of incarceration. Prison officials may not deprive inmates of "the basic necessities of life, which include reasonably adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, and necessary medical attention. State of Alabama , F. Nor may they "maliciously and sadistically" use force to harm inmates. Hudson v. McMillian , U. The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or will be formed by use of the site.
The attorney listings on this site are paid attorney advertising. In some states, the information on this website may be considered a lawyer referral service. Please reference the Terms of Use and the Supplemental Terms for specific information related to your state. Grow Your Legal Practice. Meet the Editors.
The Meaning of "Cruel and Unusual Punishment". What exactly does the the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" mean? The Origin and Early Application of the Ban The English Declaration of Rights of is the source of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Modern Approach: "Evolving Standards of Decency" The practical meaning of "cruel and unusual" has troubled courts for generations, because it is difficult to imagine that any punishment, no matter how barbarous, should be accepted simply because it is "usual.
Proportionality of Sentence: Making the Punishment Fit the Crime The evolving standards approach looks not only at the nature of the punishment in each case, but also whether it fits the severity of the crime. Prison Conditions The cruel and unusual punishment clause also applies to conditions of incarceration. Talk to a Lawyer Start here to find criminal defense lawyers near you. Practice Area Please select Zip Code. How it Works Briefly tell us about your case Provide your contact information Choose attorneys to contact you.
Legal Information. Criminal Law Information. Proof and Defenses in Criminal Cases. Getting a Lawyer for your Criminal Case. Steps in a Criminal Defense Case. Arraignment: Your First Court Appearance. Plea Bargains in a Criminal Case.
Legal Elements of Common Crimes. Expungement and Criminal Records. Should I just plead guilty and avoid a trial?
0コメント