Which outlaws cruel and unusual punishment

This does not mean that any punishment that was once part of our tradition can still be used today. If a once-traditional punishment falls out of usage for several generations, it becomes unusual. If a legislature then tries to reintroduce it, courts should compare how harsh it is relative to those punishment practices that are still part of our tradition.

If a punishment is significantly harsher than punishments traditionally given for the same or similar crimes, it is cruel and unusual, even though the same punishment might be acceptable for other crimes.

For example, it would be cruel and unusual to impose a life sentence for a parking violation, but not for murder. If it fell out of usage for multiple generations, however, it might become cruel and unusual. This has already occurred with respect to some once-traditional applications of the death penalty. It is no longer constitutional to execute a person for theft, for example, because this punishment fell out of usage for this crime a long time ago, and the punishments that have replaced it are far less severe.

If a court were to find that their effect is significantly harsher than the longstanding punishment practices they have replaced, it could appropriately find them cruel and unusual.

Burr lost the election, and he blamed Hamilton, so he challenged Hamilton to a duel. Dueling continued in the United States until the midth century. Burr was never prosecuted for the murder of Hamilton. Today, dueling is deemed unconscionable. No American leader could credibly support dueling as an acceptable method for resolving conflicts. It is hard for us now to understand how the Framers of our Constitution could embrace such a misguided and barbaric practice.

To become a great country, America needs its laws and basic constitutional principles to evolve as our understanding of human capacity and behavior deepens. The greatness of our Constitution and America itself is dependent on how the Constitution is interpreted to ensure that all people are treated equally and fairly and have the same opportunity to exercise the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the exclusive group of men who authored the Constitution.

As our notions of fairness, equality, and justice have evolved, so too must our interpretation of the Constitution. No provision of the Constitution enshrines this principle more clearly than the Eighth Amendment. This approach begs complex questions, such as who decides what is decent and what is cruel?

Throughout its history, the Court has ruled that certain practices are unconstitutional or indecent even when such practices were popular. Ending racial segregation in schools or restaurants and striking down bans on interracial marriage never could have been achieved by a popular vote in the American South.

Would it be unconstitutional to give a life sentence for double-parking? What about a life sentence for possession of cocaine? That letter question was the issue presented in Harmelin v Michigan , in which the Court 5 to 4 upheld the sentence of life imprisonment for the first-time offense of possession of cocaine albeit a large amount of cocaine.

Two justices Scalia and Rehnquist argued that the Eighth Amendment did not address the proportionality of punishments at all. Four justices would have reaffirmed an earlier decision that adopted a three-prong test to determining disproportionate punishments and would have reversed Harmelin's conviction. A key concurring opinion signed by three justices argued that grossly disproportionate punishments did violate the Eighth Amendment, but offered a test that would only rarely allow courts to reach such conclusions.

In Hudson v McMillian the Court considered whether the beating by prison guards of a handcuffed inmate at Louisiana's Angola prison violated the inmate's Eighth Amendment rights. Voting 7 to 2, the Court found a violation of the cruel and unusual punishment clause even though the inmate suffered no permanent injuries or injuries that required hospitalization.

In so holding, the Court rejected the lower court's argument that only beatings that caused "significant injuries" read as injuries that were permanent or required hospitalization rose to the level of Eighth Amendment violations. In dissent, Justices Thomas and Scalia argued controversily that the Eighth Amendment was intended to reach beatings by guards at all--rather only judicially-imposed sentences. In Roper v Simmons the Court considered whether it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute a prisoner for a crime he committed when he was a minor.

In previous decisions, the Court had found it unconstitutional to execute persons who were less than 16 at the time of their crime, but had upheld executions of those 16 and 17 at the time of their crimes. The Court had also, in , held it to be a violation of the Eighth Amendment to execute mentally retarded persons.

Voting 5 to 4, the Court in Roper cited recent evidence to conclude that the execution of persons who were minors at the time of their crimes now violated "evolving standards of decency" and, hence, the Eighth Amendment. Justice Kennedy, in his opinion for the Court, wrote: Terrance Graham's sentence guarantees he will die in prison without any meaningful opportunity to obtain release, no matter what he might do to demonstrate that the bad acts he committed as a teenager are not representative of his true character, even if he spends the next half century attempting to atone for his crimes and learn from his mistakes.

The Eighth Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Questions 1. Would the majority in Francis uphold a state law that said prisoners should be given a sharp jolt of electricity, then sent back to their cells to await execution four weeks later?

Prohibition against Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The better-known component of the Eighth Amendment is the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Although this phrase originally was intended to outlaw certain gruesome methods of punishments— such as torture, burning at the stake, or crucifixion— it has been broadened over the years to protect against punishments that are grossly disproportionate to meaning much too harsh for the particular crime.

Except for a brief period in the s, the death penalty has not been considered by the U. Supreme Court to be cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court does consider age when determining the constitutionality of imprisonment. In Graham v. Florida , U. Further, if a court does impose a life sentence, it must also provide the offender with a "realistic opportunity to obtain release.

In Miller v. Alabama , U. In Ingraham v. Wright , U. This standard was refined in Whitley v.