Many argue that capital punishment fails to advance any public good, that it is of a past era, and it should be eliminated. Proponents of the death penalty argue that some people have committed such atrocious crimes that they deserve death, and that the death penalty may deter others from committing atrocious crimes. They also point out that the punishment is authorized in a majority of states, and public opinion polls continue to show broad support for it.
There is not time or space here to answer all these questions, but the essays that follow will demonstrate differing ways of approaching several of them.
This essay concerns the original meaning of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. It argues that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with its original public meaning, and it demonstrates what effect such an interpretation would have in the real world.
In recent years, some judges and scholars have argued that the meaning of the Constitution should change as societal values change. Dulles This approach allows the Supreme Court to get to whatever result it considers desirable, regardless of what the text of the Constitution actually means. Originalists object to this approach for many reasons, including the fact that it is inconsistent with democratic principles and the rule of law. In response to the non-originalist approach to the Constitution, some judges and scholars — most prominently Justices Scalia and Thomas — have argued for a very narrow approach to original meaning that is almost willfully indifferent to current societal needs.
To understand their approach, let us revisit the four questions raised in the joint statement concerning the settled history and meaning of the Eighth Amendment: 1 What standard should the Court use in deciding whether a punishment is unconstitutionally cruel?
Justices Scalia and Thomas argue that the four questions raised above should be answered as follows: 1 The standards of cruelty that prevailed in , the year the Eighth Amendment was adopted, provide the appropriate benchmark for determining whether a punishment is cruel and unusual. If a punishment was acceptable in , it must be acceptable today. A life sentence for a parking violation, for example, would not violate the Constitution. Since flogging, branding, and various forms of bodily mutilation were permissible in the Eighteenth Century, few modern forms of punishment are likely to fall into this category.
In other words, a common punishment might be more cruel than a rare one: For example, it would be more cruel to commit torture on a mass scale than on rare occasions, not less. The best way to understand this is to run through those four questions once again, using our new understanding of the original meaning of the Clause:. Rather, the benchmark is longstanding prior practice.
If a given punishment has been continuously used for a very long time, this is powerful evidence that multiple generations of Americans have considered it reasonable and just.
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. Bail also assists a defendant in preparing his or her case for trial, for it is far more difficult to consult with counsel when one is in police custody. The Eighth Amendment however, does not guarantee an absolute right to be released on bail before trial.
The U. Supreme Court has identified circumstances when a court may refuse bail entirely, such as when a defendant shows a significant risk of running away or poses a considerable danger to the community. 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.
In , however, the U. Supreme Court issued a decision that confirmed that this clause applied to the states as well. Cruel and unusual punishment refers to a form of punishment that causes a criminal defendant to suffer such pain, humiliation, or suffering that it is considered to be unconstitutional under the 8 th Amendment.
A punishment may also be deemed to be cruel and unusual if it is disproportionate to the crime committed or is seemingly random. In , the U. An example of cruel and unusual punishment includes torturing a criminal to death. Hence, why there are strict instructions for administering the death penalty. The 8 th Amendment affects sentencing in that it restricts the manner in which criminal defendants are punished.
It also prevents the government from imposing unnecessary and disproportionate penalties on criminal defendants who are lawful U. The death penalty would be an overly severe and patently unnecessary punishment for simply taking some candy bars.
On the other hand, it may be reasonable and considered acceptable by society to give someone the death penalty for assassinating an elected government official.
However, the death penalty would need to be administered in a humane fashion, or else it will be considered to be unconstitutional under the 8 th Amendment. Additionally, the death penalty cannot be imposed on minors, defendants with intellectual disabilities, or on defendants who committed crimes that do not warrant the death penalty as an appropriate form of punishment. There is a specific appeals process for cases involving the death penalty.
This process will generally vary in accordance with state laws. It is important to remember that the death penalty is not available as a form of punishment in every state. The appeals process for federal execution cases is just as specific as the ones implemented in various pro-death penalty states. There are different kinds of appeals as well as different courts in which each separate appeal must be filed. The process may also depend on the issues being appealed and whether they are considered federal or state law issues.
In contrast, a federal habeas corpus appeal will only be available to criminal defendants who raised federal issues on appeal in state courts. Accordingly, criminal defendants who are facing the death penalty should speak to a criminal defense attorney immediately for further legal advice. Again, whether an unfair sentence can be appealed for these types of cases will be contingent on a number of specific factors. Some reasons that could potentially give rise to an appeal include:.
To reiterate, it is strongly advised that any criminal defendant who is involved in a capital case speak to a criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. Today, the death penalty is not only regarded as a controversial form of punishment, but has also become a hot button issue in politics. According to statistics from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, only 50 federal executions had been carried out since That is until the Trump Administration approved 13 federal executions over the span of six months, starting from July , and ending with the administration in January On July 1, , Merrick Garland, who is the U.
Attorney General, placed a moratorium on all federal executions. Some services that your criminal lawyer may be able to provide or assist you with when faced with 8 th Amendment issues include:. As previously discussed, criminal defendants who are dealing with 8 th Amendment issues should speak to a local criminal lawyer immediately for further advice.
Also, be sure that you hire a criminal lawyer who has extensive experience in handling cases involving an 8 th Amendment violation. Jaclyn Wishnia.
0コメント