The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the government from imposing “cruel and unusual punishment” on those convicted of crimes. This prohibition includes punishments that are disproportionate to the crime committed, punishments that go beyond what is necessary to achieve the legitimate aims of the state, and punishments that are so inherently cruel or degrading that they offend our sense of justice and decency.
The Supreme Court has played a central role in crafting and interpreting the meaning of the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause. Over the years, the Court has established a set of principles and guidelines that limit the government’s power to inflict pain and suffering on criminal offenders.
One of the most significant Supreme Court cases to address cruel and unusual punishment is Furman v. Georgia (1972). In that case, the Court struck down the death penalty as it was then administered in the United States, finding that it violated the Eighth Amendment. The Court determined that the death penalty was being imposed arbitrarily and capriciously, with significant disparities in how it was applied based on factors such as race, social class, and geography.
Furman v. Georgia did not completely abolish the death penalty, but it did establish important limitations on how it could be imposed. In subsequent cases, the Court has continued to refine and clarify those limitations, such as prohibiting the use of the death penalty for certain categories of offenders (such as juveniles and those with intellectual disabilities) and requiring that the sentencing process include meaningful opportunities for the defendant to present mitigating evidence and arguments.
Another area where the Supreme Court has addressed cruel and unusual punishment is in the use of solitary confinement. This is where a prisoner is confined to a small cell, with little or no human contact, for 23 hours or more per day. The Court has recognized that prolonged or indefinite solitary confinement can cause serious mental and physical harm and can be considered a form of cruel and unusual punishment.
For example, in Davis v. Ayala (2015), the Court ruled that a prisoner who had been placed in solitary confinement for over 25 years had a plausible claim that his Eighth Amendment rights had been violated. The Court expressed concern that such long-term isolation can lead to mental health problems, such as anxiety, paranoia, and depression, and that it may also exacerbate existing mental health conditions.
The Supreme Court has also addressed issues related to overcrowding in prisons and jails. Overcrowding can lead to a variety of problems, including increased violence, disease, and poor living conditions. The Court has recognized that overcrowding can be a violation of the Eighth Amendment if it results in conditions that are grossly inadequate or that pose a significant risk to the health or safety of prisoners.
In Brown v. Plata (2011), the Court held that overcrowding in California state prisons had reached levels that violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court found that the overcrowding had resulted in a lack of adequate medical and mental health care for prisoners, which placed them at substantial risk of serious harm or death.
The Court ordered California to take steps to reduce the prison population to a level that would allow for adequate medical care and other essential services. The state ultimately complied with the Court’s order by implementing a range of measures, such as early release programs, diversion programs, and more community-based alternatives to incarceration.
The Supreme Court has also addressed the issue of mandatory minimum sentences, which require judges to impose a minimum sentence for certain offenses, regardless of the circumstances of the individual case. Many critics have argued that mandatory minimums can be unjust and disproportionate, particularly in cases where the offender is a first-time, nonviolent offender.
In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the Court struck down mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders, finding that such sentences violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court noted that juvenile offenders are different from adult offenders in several important ways, including their limited capacity for judgment and their greater potential for rehabilitation.
The Court emphasized that juvenile offenders must be given the opportunity to demonstrate that they are capable of change and reform, and that a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole effectively denies them that opportunity. The Court did not completely prohibit life sentences for juvenile offenders, but it required that such sentences be imposed only after careful consideration of the individual circumstances of the offender and the offense.
Finally, the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of excessive fines and fees in the criminal justice system. These can include fines that are disproportionately high, court costs that are imposed without regard for the offender’s ability to pay, and other fees that can accumulate to the point where they become unpayable.
In Timbs v. Indiana (2019), the Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines applies to state and local governments. The Court found that the state of Indiana had violated the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights by imposing a fine that was significantly higher than the maximum fine allowed for the offense and that was grossly disproportionate to the offense committed.
The Court noted that excessive fines can undermine the goals of the criminal justice system, such as deterrence and rehabilitation, by imposing a burden that is too great for the offender to bear and that does not reflect the severity of the offense. The Court held that the prohibition against excessive fines applies in all cases where the government seeks to seize property from an individual as a punishment for a crime, regardless of whether the property is real estate, cash, or other assets.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on cruel and unusual punishment has been evolving and will continue to do so in response to changing social and legal realities. The principles and guidelines established by the Court have been instrumental in shaping the way that criminal justice is administered in the United States, and they have helped to ensure that the power of the state to punish criminal offenders is exercised in a way that is fair, just, and proportionate to the circumstances of each case.
The Cruel and Unusual Punishment History Cruel and unusual punishment refers to the punishment inflicted upon a person to create as much suffering and humiliation on that person as possible. All capital punishments throughout most of the world’s recorded history have been purposely designed to be extremely painful. Examples of such painful acts of capital punishment include boiling to death, flaying, disembowelment, crucifixion, crushing, sawing, impalement, and necklacing which were practiced in many different countries throughout the world, such as France, England, Germany and the countries of Asia.
Such punishments were not only cruel and painful because of the method in which they were carried out, but also because of the occasionally slow process in which they were carried out leading to further suffering. Impalement and crucifixion often required the condemned person to suffer for many days before finally dying. Notable Cases Pertaining to Cruel and Unusual Punishment Today, many of the countries which have performed such acts of punishment on condemned persons have ceased to do so and have been deemed unacceptable. The English Bill of Rights described such acts as unacceptable and the same idea was finally adopted when the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was written.
The Supreme Court has examined this portion of the Amendment in several cases, including Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber and Robinson v. California. The former case determined that the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Francis v. Resweber This case asked the question of whether or not capital punishment through the electric chair a second time can be done after the first attempt failed. Francis and his legal team maintained that a second attempt would be a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. Robinson v. California The Supreme Court case of Robinson v. California decided that punishing a person based solely on a medical condition, such as a controlled substance addiction, is a form of cruel and unusual punishment. The case also helped enforce that having an addiction to narcotics is indeed an illness and not a crime; a crime being something committed in an ‘act’. The background revolved around Robinson, who was stopped by a police officer, who noticed track marks on Robinson’s arms. He was eventually arrested for a misdemeanor for being addicted to a controlled substance. He was eventually convicted and sentenced to 90 days in jail.
Furman v. Georgia In the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Furman v. Georgia, it was determined that enforcing capital punishment in arbitrary and inconsistent patterns is a violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and is a violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. The case involved Furman, who was burgling a victim’s house. When he attempted to flee, he claimed his gun went off and killed the victim, contradicting his prior statements to police, in which he stated that he turned around and fired a blind shot. In either case, he was committing a felony and was involved in the death of the victim during that felony, constituting the death penalty in the State of Georgia. Although he was sentenced to death, he was never executed. The Supreme Court decided in a 5 to 4 decision that enforcing the death penalty in Furman’s situation was unconstitutional and was considered to be cruel and unusual punishment.
Consequently, 37 states enacted new laws governing the death penalty and procedures leading up to it to avoid arbitrary impositions of capital punishment. From this case, four principles were developed by Justice Brennan in examining the possibility of capital punishment and what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment:
1) The punishment cannot be degrading to human dignity in the case of torture.
2) A severe punishment inflicted in a completely arbitrary manner.
3) A punishment that is largely rejected throughout society.
4) A severe punishment which is “patently unnecessary.” Prohibited Capital Punishments, Regardless of the Crime Committed In the case of Wilkerson v. Utah, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that death by firing squad in Utah was indeed Constitutional and did not present a method of capital punishment in the territory of cruel and unusual punishment. The Justices further commented that such punishments as drawing and quartering, public dissecting, burning alive, and disemboweling would be cruel and unusual forms of punishment, regardless of the crime committed by the convicted person(s).
In addition, executing either the mentally handicapped or persons under the age of eighteen are also violations under criminal laws. Prohibited Capital Punishments for Specific Crimes The case of Weems v. United States in the Supreme Court helped to overturn a specific type of punishment which was called cadena temporal, meaning hard and painful labor. The Supreme Court case of Trop v. Dulles showed that stripping a person of naturalized citizenship was indeed a cruel and unusual punishment because it involved “destroying an individual’s status in organized society.”
Furthermore, the case of Solem v. Helm came to the conclusion that holding a person in jail for an extended period of time disproportionate to the crime committed is a form of cruel and unusual punishment under criminal laws. Death Penalty and Rape The Supreme Court case of Coker v. Georgia showed that enforcing the death penalty on a person convicted of the rape of a woman is an excessive punishment under criminal laws. Furthermore, Kennedy v. Louisiana determined that the rape of a child will not constitute capital punishment, as long as there was no life taken in the process. In this case, however, the Supreme Court failed to recognize a Federal law which states that capital punishment for child rape in military court-martial proceedings may apply. The Supreme Court has refused to reconsider the case based upon this law.
