| Eighth Amendment To The United States Constitution |
Article Index for Eighth Amendment |
Website Links For Eighth Amendment |
Information AboutEighth Amendment To The United States Constitution |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION | |
| 1791 in law | |
| amendments to the united states constitution | |
| 08 | |
|
.]] Amendment VIII (the '''Eighth Amendment''') of the United States Constitution , which is part of the U.S. Bill Of Rights , prohibits excessive bail or fines, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. The phrases employed are taken from the English Bill Of Rights . The Amendment has been made applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment by the Supreme Court in 1962 (Robinson v. California 370 U.S. 660) TEXT EXCESSIVE BAIL In England , Sheriff s originally determined whether or not to grant bail to criminal suspects. Since they tended to abuse their power, Parliament passed a statute in 1275 whereby bailable and non-bailable offenses were defined. The King's judges often subverted the provisions of the law. It was held that an individual may be held without bail upon the Sovereign's command. Eventually, the Petition Of Right of 1628 argued that the King did not have such authority. Later, technicalities in the law were exploited to keep the accused imprisoned without bail even where the offenses were bailable; such loopholes were for the most part closed by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 . Thereafter, judges were compelled to set bail, but they often required impracticable amounts. Finally, the English Bill of Rights ( 1689 ) held that "excessive bail ought not to be required." Nevertheless, the Bill did not determine the distinction between bailable and non-bailable offenses. Thus, the Eighth Amendment has been interpreted to mean that bail may be denied where the charges are sufficiently serious. The Supreme Court has also permitted "preventive" detention without bail. In '' United States V. Salerno '' ( 1987 ), the Supreme Court held that the only limitation imposed by the bail clause is that "the government's proposed conditions of release or detention not be 'excessive' in light of the perceived evil." CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS The use of the word ''and'' (instead of ''or'') has been held to have some significance. Cruel punishments are allowable as long as more than one court system applies the punishment. Similarly, unusual punishments are permitted so long as they are not cruel, although some lawyers would argue that any unusual punishment is cruel. Thus, for example, Three Strikes Law s have been upheld by the Court as not conflicting with this clause, because even if they are unusual, they are not cruel (in the sense that there is no physical torture). The Eighth Amendment forbids some punishments entirely, and forbids some punishments that are excessive when compared to the crime. In '' Furman V. Georgia '' ( 1972 ), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."
Continuing, he wrote that he expected that no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a "cumulative" analysis of the implication of each of the four principles. Punishments completely forbidden In '' Wilkerson V. Utah '' ( 1878 , pertaining to methods of Capital Punishment ), the Supreme Court commented that Drawing And Quartering , public Dissecting , Burning Alive and Disembowel ing would constitute cruel and unusual punishment while determining that death by firing squad was as legitimate as the common method of that time, hanging. Because it is the needless infliction of pain, Torture is Prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The Court held in the case '' Trop V. Dulles '' ( 1958 ) that punishing a natural born citizen for a crime by taking away his citizenship is unconstitutionally excessive, being "more primitive than Torture " because it involved the "total destruction of the individual's status in organized society". In '' Robinson V. California '' ( 1962 ), the Court decided, 6-2, that a California law authorizing a 90-day jail sentence for "be {Link without Title} Addicted to the use of Narcotics " violated the Eighth Amendment, as narcotics addiction "is apparently an illness", and California was attempting to punish people based on the state of this illness, rather than for any specific act. Punishments forbidden as excessive '' Weems V. United States '' ( 1910 ) held that a punishment is cruel and unusual if it is excessive. (The ''Weems'' case dealt with a sentence of Cadena Temporal , a punishment which mandated "hard and painful labor", shackling for the duration of incarceration, and permanent civil disabilities.) In '' Coker V. Georgia '' ( 1977 ), the Court declared that the death penalty was unconstitutionally excessive for rape of an adult female and, by implication, for any crime other than murder. However, some states are challenging this rule[http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-okexecute_12tex.ART.State.Edition1.3efd4de.html Dallas Morning News article] by enacting a death penalty statute for repeat child molesters. Traditionally, the length of a prison sentence was not subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, regardless of the crime for which the sentence was imposed. It was not until the case of '' without parole for cashing a $100 check on a closed account was cruel and unusual. However, in '' Harmelin V. Michigan '', , a fractured Court retreated from the strong test announced in ''Solem'' and held that for noncapital sentences, the Eighth Amendment only constrains the length of prison terms by a "gross disproportionality principle." Under this gross disproportionality principle, the Court sustained a mandatory sentence of life without parole imposed for possession of 650 grams or more of cocaine. Capital punishment The Supreme Court 's consistent ruling has been that Capital Punishment itself is not a violation of the Eighth (and Fourteenth) Amendment, but that many applications have been. Even the landmark case of Furman V. Georgia did not hold (even though it is sometimes claimed that it did) that capital punishment is per se unconstitutional. The Court declared the execution of the Mentally Retarded to be unconstitutionally cruel and unusual in '' Atkins V. Virginia '' (2002), and in '' Roper V. Simmons '' (2005) it declared the death penalty unconstitutionally cruel and unusual for people who were under age 18 at the time of their crime. The constitutionality of Capital Punishment itself is often challenged, usually on the grounds that it allegedly violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. In '' Wilkerson V. Utah '', the Supreme Court stated that death by Firing Squad was not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. The first significant challenge to reach the Court was '' Furman V. Georgia '' ( 1972 ), when the Supreme Court overturned the death sentences of Furman as well as two defendants in separate cases against Georgia and Texas, in a 5-4 decision. Of the five justices voting to overturn the death penalty cases, two found capital punishment itself to be unconstitutionally cruel and unusual; and three found that the statutes in these particular cases were meted out in a random and capricious fashion, discriminating against blacks and the poor. This, they said, made the application of the death penalty in these particular cases cruel and unusual. States with capital punishment rewrote the laws to address the Supreme Court's findings, and in ''. Some states have passed laws imposing mandatory death penalties in certain cases; the Supreme Court has found these laws to be unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Other statutes specifying factors for courts to use in making their decisions have been upheld. Some have not: in '' Godfrey V. Georgia '' ( 1980 ), the Supreme Court overturned a sentence based upon a finding that a murder was "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman," as it deemed that any murder may be reasonably characterized in this manner. Similarly, in '' Maynard V. Cartwright '' ( 1988 ), the Court found that an "especially heinous, atrocious or cruel" standard was too vague. However, the vagueness of this language depends on how lower courts interpret it. In '' Walton V. Arizona '', , the Court found that the phrase "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved" was not vague because the state supreme court had expounded on its meaning. Nevertheless, under the proportionality principle embodied in the Eighth Amendment, the Court has found that the death penalty may not be imposed for the crime of rape of an adult woman, Coker V. Georgia for Felony Murder where the defendant was a minor participant in the crime, Felony Murder And The Death Penalty and on mentally retarded Atkins V. Virginia and juvenile offenders. Roper V. Simmons Punishments allowed In '' Rummel V. Estelle '', , the Court upheld a life sentence with the possibility of parole for fraud crimes totaling $230. In '' Harmelin V. Michigan '', , the Court upheld a life sentence without the possibility of parole for possession of 672 grams of cocaine. In '' Lockyer V. Andrade '', , the Court upheld a sentence imposed under California's three-strikes law when the defendant was convicted of shoplifting videotapes worth a total of $150 fine. SEE ALSO
REFERENCES EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|