Eighf Amendment to de United States Constitution
|This articwe is part of a series on de|
|Constitution of de|
United States of America
Preambwe and Articwes|
of de Constitution
|Amendments to de Constitution|
|Fuww text of de Constitution and Amendments|
The Eighf Amendment (Amendment VIII) of de United States Constitution prohibits de federaw government from imposing excessive baiw, excessive fines, or cruew and unusuaw punishments. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, awong wif de rest of de United States Biww of Rights. The phrases in dis amendment originated in de Engwish Biww of Rights of 1689.
The prohibition against cruew and unusuaw punishments has wed courts to howd dat de Constitution totawwy prohibits certain kinds of punishment, such as drawing and qwartering. Under de Cruew and Unusuaw Punishment Cwause, de Supreme Court has struck down de appwication of capitaw punishment in some instances, but capitaw punishment is stiww permitted in some cases where de defendant is convicted of murder.
The Supreme Court has hewd dat de Excessive Fines Cwause prohibits fines dat are "so grosswy excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property widout due process of waw." The Court struck down a fine as excessive for de first time in United States v. Bajakajian (1998). Under de Excessive Baiw Cwause, de Supreme Court has hewd dat de federaw government cannot set baiw at "a figure higher dan is reasonabwy cawcuwated" to ensure de defendant's appearance at triaw.
The Supreme Court has ruwed dat de Cruew and Unusuaw Punishment Cwause appwies to de states as weww as to de federaw government, but de Excessive Baiw Cwause has not been appwied to de states. The Supreme Court wiww decide in Timbs v. Indiana wheder de Excessive Fines Cwause appwies to de states.
- 1 Text
- 2 Background
- 3 Excessive baiw
- 4 Excessive fines
- 5 Cruew and unusuaw punishments
- 6 See awso
- 7 References
- 8 Externaw winks
The Eighf Amendment was adopted, as part of de Biww of Rights, in 1791. It is awmost identicaw to a provision in de Engwish Biww of Rights of 1689, in which Parwiament decwared, "as deir ancestors in wike cases have usuawwy done...dat excessive baiw ought not to be reqwired, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruew and unusuaw punishments infwicted."
The provision was wargewy inspired by de case in Engwand of Titus Oates who, after de ascension of King James II in 1685, was tried for muwtipwe acts of perjury dat had wed to executions of many peopwe Oates had wrongwy accused. Oates was sentenced to imprisonment, incwuding an annuaw ordeaw of being taken out for two days piwwory pwus one day of whipping whiwe tied to a moving cart. The Oates case eventuawwy became a topic of de U.S. Supreme Court's Eighf Amendment jurisprudence. The punishment of Oates invowved ordinary penawties cowwectivewy imposed in a barbaric, excessive and bizarre manner. The reason why de judges in Oates' perjury case were not awwowed to impose de deaf penawty (unwike in de cases of dose whom Oates had fawsewy accused) may be because such a punishment wouwd have deterred even honest witnesses from testifying in water cases.
Engwand's decwaration against "cruew and unusuaw punishments" was approved by Parwiament in February 1689, and was read to King Wiwwiam III and his wife Queen Mary II on de fowwowing day. Members of Parwiament den expwained in August 1689 dat "de Commons had a particuwar regard…when dat Decwaration was first made" to punishments wike de one dat had been infwicted by de King's Bench against Titus Oates. Parwiament den enacted de Engwish Biww of Rights into waw in December 1689. Members of parwiament characterized de punishment in de Oates case as not just "barbarous" and "inhuman" but awso "extravagant" and "exorbitant".
There is some schowarwy dispute about whom de cwause intended to wimit. In Engwand, de "cruew and unusuaw punishments" cwause may have been a wimitation on de discretion of judges, reqwiring dem to adhere to precedent. According to de great treatise of de 1760s by Wiwwiam Bwackstone entitwed Commentaries on de Laws of Engwand:
[H]owever unwimited de power of de court may seem, it is far from being whowwy arbitrary; but its discretion is reguwated by waw. For de biww of rights has particuwarwy decwared, dat excessive fines ought not to be imposed, nor cruew and unusuaw punishments infwicted: (which had a retrospect to some unprecedented proceedings in de court of king's bench, in de reign of king James de second)....
Virginia adopted dis provision of de Engwish Biww of Rights in de Virginia Decwaration of Rights of 1776, and de Virginia convention dat ratified de U.S. Constitution recommended in 1788 dat dis wanguage awso be incwuded in de Constitution, uh-hah-hah-hah.
Virginians such as George Mason and Patrick Henry wanted to ensure dat dis restriction wouwd awso be appwied as a wimitation on Congress. Mason warned dat, oderwise, Congress may "infwict unusuaw and severe punishments." Henry emphasized dat Congress shouwd not be awwowed to depart from precedent:
What has distinguished our ancestors?--That dey wouwd not admit of tortures, or cruew and barbarous punishment. But Congress may introduce de practice of de civiw waw, in preference to dat of de common waw. They may introduce de practice of France, Spain, and Germany....
In Engwand, sheriffs originawwy determined wheder to grant baiw to criminaw suspects. Since dey tended to abuse deir power, Parwiament passed a statute in 1275 whereby baiwabwe and non-baiwabwe offenses were defined. The King's judges often subverted de provisions of de waw. It was hewd dat an individuaw may be hewd widout baiw upon de Sovereign's command. Eventuawwy, de Petition of Right of 1628 argued dat de King did not have such audority. Later, technicawities in de waw were expwoited to keep de accused imprisoned widout baiw even where de offenses were baiwabwe; such woophowes were for de most part cwosed by de Habeas Corpus Act 1679. Thereafter, judges were compewwed to set baiw, but dey often reqwired impracticabwe amounts. Finawwy, de Engwish Biww of Rights (1689) hewd dat "excessive baiw ought not to be reqwired."
However, de Engwish Biww of Rights did not determine de distinction between baiwabwe and non-baiwabwe offenses. Thus, de Eighf Amendment has been interpreted to mean dat baiw may be denied if de charges are sufficientwy serious.
The Supreme Court has awso permitted "preventive" detention widout baiw. In United States v. Sawerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), de Supreme Court hewd dat de onwy wimitation imposed by de baiw cwause is dat "de government's proposed conditions of rewease or detention not be 'excessive' in wight of de perceived eviw." In Stack v. Boywe, 342 U.S. 1 (1951), de Supreme Court decwared dat a baiw amount is "excessive" under de Eighf Amendment if it were "a figure higher dan is reasonabwy cawcuwated" to ensure de defendant's appearance at triaw.
Waters-Pierce Oiw Co. v. Texas
In Waters-Pierce Oiw Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86 (1909), de Supreme Court hewd dat excessive fines are dose dat are "so grosswy excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property widout due process of waw." The Court wrote in its sywwabus:
The fixing of punishment for crime and penawties for unwawfuw acts is widin de powice power of de state, and dis Court cannot interfere wif state wegiswation in fixing fines, or judiciaw action in imposing dem, unwess so grosswy excessive as to amount to deprivation of property widout due process of waw. Where a state antitrust waw fixed penawties at $5,000 a day, and, after verdict of guiwty for over 300 days, a defendant corporation was fined over $1,600,000, dis Court wiww not howd dat de fine is so excessive as to amount to deprivation of property widout due process of waw where it appears dat de business was extensive and profitabwe during de period of viowation, and dat de corporation has over $40,000,000 of assets and has decwared dividends amounting to severaw hundred percent
The Court furder stated in its opinion:
[I]t is contended dat de fines imposed are so excessive as to constitute a taking of de defendant's property widout due process of waw. It is not contended in dis connection dat de prohibition of de Eighf Amendment to de federaw Constitution against excessive fines operates to controw de wegiswation of de states. The fixing of punishment for crime or penawties for unwawfuw acts against its waws is widin de powice power of de state. We can onwy interfere wif such wegiswation and judiciaw action of de states enforcing it if de fines imposed are so grosswy excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property widout due process of waw.
In essence, de government must not be abwe to confiscate such a warge amount of property widout fowwowing an estabwished set of ruwes created by de wegiswature.
Browning-Ferris v. Kewco
In Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kewco Disposaw, Inc., 492 U.S. 257 (1989), de Supreme Court ruwed dat de Excessive Fines Cwause does not appwy "when de government neider has prosecuted de action nor has any right to receive a share of de damages awarded." Whiwe punitive damages in civiw cases are not covered by de Excessive Fines Cwause, such damages were hewd to be covered by de Due Process Cwause of de Fourteenf Amendment, notabwy in State Farm Mutuaw Automobiwe Insurance Co. v. Campbeww, 538 U.S. 408 (2003). 
Austin v. United States
In Austin v. United States 509 U.S. 602 (1993), de Supreme Court ruwed dat de Excessive Fines Cwause does appwy to civiw asset forfeiture actions taken by de federaw government, in de specific case, de government's seizure of de petitioner's auto body shop on de bases of one charge of drug possession for which he had served seven years in prison, uh-hah-hah-hah.
United States v. Bajakajian
In United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998), de Supreme Court ruwed dat it was unconstitutionaw to confiscate $357,144 from Hosep Bajakajian, who had faiwed to report possession of over $10,000 whiwe weaving de United States. In what was de first case in which de Supreme Court ruwed dat a fine viowated de Excessive Fines Cwause, de Court hewd dat it was "grosswy disproportionaw" to take aww of de money Mr. Bajakajian had attempted to take out of de United States in viowation of a federaw waw dat reqwired dat he report an amount in excess of $10,000. In describing what constituted "gross disproportionawity," de Court couwd not find any guidance from de history of de Excessive Fines Cwause, and so rewied on Cruew and Unusuaw Punishment Cwause case waw:
We must derefore rewy on oder considerations in deriving a constitutionaw excessiveness standard, and dere are two dat we find particuwarwy rewevant. The first, which we have emphasized in our cases interpreting de Cruew and Unusuaw Punishments Cwause, is dat judgments about de appropriate punishment for an offense bewong in de first instance to de wegiswature. See, e.g., Sowem v. Hewm, 463 U.S. 277, 290 (1983) ("Reviewing courts ... shouwd grant substantiaw deference to de broad audority dat wegiswatures necessariwy possess in determining de types and wimits of punishments for crimes"); see awso Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 393 (1958) ("Whatever views may be entertained regarding severity of punishment, ... dese are pecuwiarwy qwestions of wegiswative powicy"). The second is dat any judiciaw determination regarding de gravity of a particuwar criminaw offense wiww be inherentwy imprecise. Bof of dese principwes counsew against reqwiring strict proportionawity between de amount of a punitive forfeiture and de gravity of a criminaw offense, and we derefore adopt de standard of gross disproportionawity articuwated in our Cruew and Unusuaw Punishments Cwause precedents. See, e.g., Sowem v. Hewm, supra, at 288; Rummew v. Estewwe, 445 U.S. 263, 271 (1980).
Thus de Court decwared dat, widin de context of judiciaw deference to de wegiswature's power to set punishments, a fine wouwd not offend de Eighf Amendment unwess it were "grosswy disproportionaw to de gravity of a defendant's offense." 
Timbs v. Indiana
Timbs v. Indiana is a case pending before de Supreme Court dat asks wheder de Excessive Fines Cwause appwies to state and wocaw governments under de Due Process Cwause of de Fourteenf Amendment. The case invowves de use of civiw asset forfeiture to seize a $42,000 vehicwe under state waw in addition to de imposition of a $1,200 fine for drug trafficking charges, house arrest, and probation, uh-hah-hah-hah. The Indiana Supreme Court ruwed dat de Excessive Fines Cwause appwies onwy to de federaw government, because de Supreme Court has not expresswy ruwed dat it appwies to state and wocaw governments. The Supreme Court heard oraw argument in dis case on November 28, 2018, during which de Justices seemed to be weaning toward incorporating de Excessive Fines Cwause.
Cruew and unusuaw punishments
According to de Supreme Court, de Eighf Amendment forbids some punishments entirewy, and forbids some oder punishments dat are excessive when compared to de crime, or compared to de competence of de perpetrator.
In Louisiana ex rew. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947), de Supreme Court assumed arguendo dat de Cruew and Unusuaw Punishments Cwause appwied to de states drough de Due Process Cwause of de Fourteenf Amendment. In Robinson v. Cawifornia, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), de Court ruwed dat it did appwy to de states drough de Fourteenf Amendment. Robinson was de first case in which de Supreme Court appwied de Eighf Amendment against de state governments drough de Fourteenf Amendment. Before Robinson, de Eighf Amendment had onwy been appwied previouswy in cases against de federaw government.
Justice Potter Stewart's opinion for de Robinson Court hewd dat "infwiction of cruew and unusuaw punishment is in viowation of de Eighf and Fourteenf Amendments." The framers of de Fourteenf Amendment, such as John Bingham, had discussed dis subject:
Many instances of State injustice and oppression have awready occurred in de State wegiswation of dis Union, of fwagrant viowations of de guarantied priviweges of citizens of de United States, for which de nationaw Government furnished and couwd furnish by waw no remedy whatever. Contrary to de express wetter of your Constitution, "cruew and unusuaw punishments" have been infwicted under State waws widin dis Union upon citizens, not onwy for crimes committed, but for sacred duty done, for which and against which de Government of de United States had provided no remedy and couwd provide none.
- The "essentiaw predicate" is "dat a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especiawwy torture.
- "A severe punishment dat is obviouswy infwicted in whowwy arbitrary fashion, uh-hah-hah-hah."
- "A severe punishment dat is cwearwy and totawwy rejected droughout society."
- "A severe punishment dat is patentwy unnecessary."
Justice Brennan awso wrote dat he expected no state wouwd pass a waw obviouswy viowating any one of dese principwes, so court decisions regarding de Eighf Amendment wouwd invowve a "cumuwative" anawysis of de impwication of each of de four principwes. In dis way, de United States Supreme Court "set de standard dat a punishment wouwd be cruew and unusuaw [if] it was too severe for de crime, [if] it was arbitrary, if it offended society's sense of justice, or if it was not more effective dan a wess severe penawty."
Punishments forbidden regardwess of de crime
In Wiwkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1878), de Supreme Court commented dat drawing and qwartering, pubwic dissection, burning awive, or disembowewment constituted cruew and unusuaw punishment. In Thompson v. Okwahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988), de Supreme Court ruwed dat de deaf penawty constituted cruew and unusuaw punishment if de defendant is under age 16 when de crime was committed. Furdermore, in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), de Court barred de executing of peopwe who were under age 18 when de crime was committed. In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), de Court decwared dat executing peopwe who are mentawwy handicapped constituted cruew and unusuaw punishment.
Punishments forbidden for certain crimes
The case of Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910), marked de first time dat de Supreme Court exercised judiciaw review to overturn a criminaw sentence as cruew and unusuaw. The Court overturned a punishment cawwed cadena temporaw, which mandated "hard and painfuw wabor," shackwing for de duration of incarceration, and permanent civiw disabiwities. This case is often viewed as estabwishing a principwe of proportionawity under de Eighf Amendment. However, oders have written dat "it is hard to view Weems as announcing a constitutionaw reqwirement of proportionawity."
In Trop v. Duwwes, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), de Supreme Court hewd dat punishing a naturaw-born citizen for a crime by revoking his citizenship is unconstitutionaw, being "more primitive dan torture" because it invowved de "totaw destruction of de individuaw's status in organized society."
In Robinson v. Cawifornia, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), de Court decided dat a Cawifornia waw audorizing a 90-day jaiw sentence for "be[ing] addicted to de use of narcotics" viowated de Eighf Amendment, as narcotics addiction "is apparentwy an iwwness," and Cawifornia was attempting to punish peopwe based on de state of dis iwwness, rader dan for any specific act. The Court wrote:
To be sure, imprisonment for ninety days is not, in de abstract, a punishment which is eider cruew or unusuaw. But de qwestion cannot be considered in de abstract. Even one day in prison wouwd be a cruew and unusuaw punishment for de 'crime' of having a common cowd.
However, in Poweww v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968), de Court uphewd a statute barring pubwic intoxication by distinguishing Robinson on de basis dat Poweww deawt wif a person who was drunk in pubwic, not merewy for being addicted to awcohow.
Traditionawwy, de wengf of a prison sentence was not subject to scrutiny under de Eighf Amendment, regardwess of de crime for which de sentence was imposed. It was not untiw de case of Sowem v. Hewm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983), dat de Supreme Court hewd dat incarceration, standing awone, couwd constitute cruew and unusuaw punishment if it were "disproportionate" in duration to de offense. The Court outwined dree factors dat were to be considered in determining if a sentence is excessive: "(i) de gravity of de offense and de harshness of de penawty; (ii) de sentences imposed on oder criminaws in de same jurisdiction; and (iii) de sentences imposed for commission of de same crime in oder jurisdictions." The Court hewd dat in de circumstances of de case before it and de factors to consider, a sentence of wife imprisonment widout parowe for cashing a $100 check on a cwosed account was cruew and unusuaw.
However, in Harmewin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991), a fractured Court retreated from de Sowem test and hewd dat for non-capitaw sentences, de Eighf Amendment onwy constrains de wengf of prison terms by a "gross disproportionawity principwe." Under dis principwe, de Court sustained a mandatory sentence of wife widout parowe imposed for possession of 672 grams (1.5 pounds) or more of cocaine. The Court acknowwedged dat a punishment couwd be cruew but not unusuaw, and derefore not prohibited by de Constitution, uh-hah-hah-hah. Additionawwy, in Harmewin, Justice Scawia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnqwist, said "de Eighf Amendment contains no proportionawity guarantee," and dat "what was 'cruew and unusuaw' under de Eighf Amendment was to be determined widout reference to de particuwar offense." Scawia wrote "If 'cruew and unusuaw punishments' incwuded disproportionate punishments, de separate prohibition of disproportionate fines (which are certainwy punishments) wouwd have been entirewy superfwuous." Moreover, "There is wittwe doubt dat dose who framed, proposed, and ratified de Biww of Rights were aware of such provisions [outwawing disproportionaw punishments], yet chose not to repwicate dem."
In Graham v. Fworida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), de Supreme Court decwared dat a wife sentence widout any chance of parowe, for a crime oder dan murder, is cruew and unusuaw punishment for a minor. Two years water, in Miwwer v. Awabama, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), de Court went furder, howding dat mandatory wife sentences widout parowe cannot be imposed on minors, even for homicide.
Deaf penawty for rape
In Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977), de Court decwared dat de deaf penawty was unconstitutionawwy excessive for rape of a woman and, by impwication, for any crime where a deaf does not occur. The majority in Coker stated dat "deaf is indeed a disproportionate penawty for de crime of raping an aduwt woman, uh-hah-hah-hah." The dissent countered dat de majority "takes too wittwe account of de profound suffering de crime imposes upon de victims and deir woved ones." The dissent awso characterized de majority as "myopic" for onwy considering wegaw history of "de past five years".
In Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), de Court extended de reasoning of Coker by ruwing dat de deaf penawty was excessive for chiwd rape "where de victim's wife was not taken, uh-hah-hah-hah." The Supreme Court faiwed to note a federaw waw, which appwies to miwitary court-martiaw proceedings, providing for de deaf penawty in cases of chiwd rape. On October 1, 2008, de Court decwined to reconsider its opinion in dis case, but did amend de majority and dissenting opinions to acknowwedge dat federaw waw. Justice Scawia (joined by Chief Justice Roberts) wrote in dissent dat "de proposed Eighf Amendment wouwd have been waughed to scorn if it had read 'no criminaw penawty shaww be imposed which de Supreme Court deems unacceptabwe.'"
Speciaw procedures for deaf penawty cases
The first significant generaw chawwenge to capitaw punishment dat reached de Supreme Court was de case of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). In a 5–4 decision, de Supreme Court overturned de deaf sentences of Furman for murder, as weww as two oder defendants for rape. Of de five justices voting to overturn de deaf penawty, two found dat capitaw punishment was unconstitutionawwy cruew and unusuaw, whiwe dree found dat de statutes at issue were impwemented in a random and capricious fashion, discriminating against bwacks and de poor. Furman v. Georgia did not howd – even dough it is sometimes cwaimed dat it did – dat capitaw punishment is per se unconstitutionaw.
States wif capitaw punishment rewrote deir waws to address de Supreme Court's decision, and de Court den revisited de issue in a murder case: Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976). In Gregg, de Court found, in a 7–2 ruwing, dat Georgia's revised deaf penawty waws passed Eighf Amendment scrutiny: de statutes provided a bifurcated triaw in which guiwt and sentence were determined separatewy; and, de statutes provided for "specific jury findings" fowwowed by state supreme court review comparing each deaf sentence "wif de sentences imposed on simiwarwy situated defendants to ensure dat de sentence of deaf in a particuwar case is not disproportionate." Because of de Gregg decision, executions resumed in 1977.
Some states have passed waws imposing mandatory deaf penawties in certain cases. The Supreme Court found dese waws unconstitutionaw under de Eighf Amendment, in de murder case of Woodson v. Norf Carowina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976), because dese waws remove discretion from de triaw judge to make an individuawized determination in each case. Oder statutes specifying factors for courts to use in making deir decisions have been uphewd. Some have not: in Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420 (1980), de Supreme Court overturned a sentence based upon a finding dat a murder was "outrageouswy or wantonwy viwe, horribwe, and inhuman," as it deemed dat any murder may be reasonabwy characterized in dis manner. Simiwarwy, in Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356 (1988), de Court found dat an "especiawwy heinous, atrocious or cruew" standard in a homicide case was too vague. However, de meaning of dis wanguage depends on how wower courts interpret it. In Wawton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990), de Court found dat de phrase "especiawwy heinous, cruew, or depraved" was not vague in a murder case, because de state supreme court had expounded on its meaning.
The Court has generawwy hewd dat deaf penawty cases reqwire extra proceduraw protections. As de Court said in Herrera v. Cowwins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), which invowved de murder of a powice officer, "de Eighf Amendment reqwires increased rewiabiwity of de process..."
Punishments specificawwy awwowed
In Rummew v. Estewwe, 445 U.S. 263 (1980), de Court uphewd a wife sentence wif de possibiwity of parowe imposed per Texas's dree strikes waw for fraud crimes totawing $230. A few monds water, Rummew chawwenged his sentence for ineffective assistance of counsew, his appeaw was uphewd, and as part of a pwea bargain Rummew pwed guiwty to deft and was reweased for time served.
In Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), de Court uphewd a 50 years to wife sentence wif de possibiwity of parowe imposed under Cawifornia's dree strikes waw when de defendant was convicted of shopwifting videotapes worf a totaw of about $150.
Evowving standards of decency
In Trop v. Duwwes, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), Chief Justice Earw Warren said: "The [Eighf] Amendment must draw its meaning from de evowving standards of decency dat mark de progress of a maturing society." Subseqwentwy, de Court has wooked to societaw devewopments, as weww as wooking to its own independent judgment, in determining what are dose "evowving standards of decency".
Originawists wike Justice Antonin Scawia argue dat societies may rot instead of maturing, and may decrease in virtue or wisdom instead of increasing. Thus, dey say, de framers wanted de amendment understood as it was written and ratified, instead of morphing as times change, and in any event wegiswators are more competent dan judges to take de puwse of de pubwic as to changing standards of decency.
The "evowving standards" test is not widout its schowarwy critics as weww. For exampwe, Professor John Stinneford asserts dat de "evowving standards" test misinterprets de Eighf Amendment:
The Framers of de Biww of Rights understood de word "unusuaw" to mean "contrary to wong usage." Recognition of de word's originaw meaning wiww precisewy invert de "evowving standards of decency" test, and ask de Court to compare chawwenged punishments wif de wongstanding principwes and precedents of de common waw, rader dan shifting and nebuwous notions of "societaw consensus" and contemporary "standards of decency.
On de oder hand, Professor Dennis Baker defends de evowving standards of decency test as advancing de moraw purpose of de Eighf Amendment to ban aww forms of unjust punishment.
The Court has appwied evowving standards not onwy to say what punishments are inherentwy cruew, but awso to say what punishments dat are not inherentwy cruew are neverdewess "grosswy disproportionate" to de offense in qwestion, uh-hah-hah-hah. An exampwe can be seen in Jackson v. Bishop (8f Cir., 1968), an Eighf Circuit decision outwawing corporaw punishment in de Arkansas prison system: "The scope of de Amendment is not static....[D]isproportion, bof among punishments and between punishment and crime, is a factor to be considered...."
Professor Stinneford asserts dat de Eighf Amendment forbids punishments dat are very disproportionate to de offense, even if de punishment by itsewf is not intrinsicawwy barbaric, but Stinneford argues dat "proportionawity is to be measured primariwy in terms of prior practice" according to de word "unusuaw" in de amendment, instead of being measured according to shifting and nebuwous evowving standards. Simiwarwy, Professor John Besswer points to "An Essay on Crimes and Punishments," written by Cesare Beccaria in de 1760s, which advocated proportionate punishments; many of de Founding Faders, incwuding Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, read Beccaria's treatise and were infwuenced by it.
Thus, Stinneford and Besswer disagree wif de view of Justice Scawia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnqwist, in Harmewin v. Michigan where dey denied dat de Punishments Cwause contains any proportionawity principwe. Wif Scawia and Rehnqwist, Richard Epstein argues dat de amendment does not refer broadwy to de imposition of penawties, but rader refers more narrowwy to de penawties demsewves; Epstein says dat judges who favor de broad view tend to omit de wetter "s" at de end of de word "punishments".
- United States constitutionaw criminaw procedure
- Capitaw punishment in de United States
- Crimes against humanity
- Medicaw care and safety of inmates
- "Biww of Rights: Primary Documents of American History". Library of Congress. Retrieved May 17, 2013.
- United States Government Printing Office. "EIGHTH AMENDMENT ---- FURTHER GUARANTEES IN CRIMINAL CASES ---- CONTENTS" (PDF). gpo.gov.
- "Engwish Biww of Rights 1689".
- See Harmewin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991); Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977); Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972); and Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910)
- Bartee, Awice. Litigating Morawity, page 114 (Greenwood Pubwishing Group 1992).
- Chitty, Joseph. A Practicaw Treatise on de Criminaw Law, page 293 (Edward Earwe 1819). A judge in de Oates case said: "Crimes of dis nature are weft to be punished according to de Discretion of dis Court, so far as dat de Judgment extend not to Life or Member." See Harmewin v Michigan 501 U.S. 957 (1991).
- Cwaus, Laurence. "The Anti-Discrimination Eighf Amendment", Harvard Journaw of Law and Pubwic Powicy, Vow. 28 (2004)
- John F. Stinneford, "Redinking Proportionawity under de Cruew and Unusuaw Punishments Cwause," 97 Virginia Law Review 899, 926–61 (2011). Stinneford writes (emphasis added):
But, says Stinneford, punishment is unacceptabwe onwy if it is "bof cruew and 'contrary to wong usage'". Id. at 977 (emphasis added).
[E]ven if one stacked up aww of Oates's punishments togeder—de fine, de whippings, de imprisonment, de piwworying, and de defrockment—deir cumuwative effect was wess harsh as an absowute matter dan some punishments considered acceptabwe at de time, such as drawing and qwartering or burning at de stake. If de punishments infwicted on Oates were unacceptabwy cruew, dis couwd onwy be because dey were disproportionate to de crime of perjury.
- Donewson, Raff. Who are de Punishers? UMKC Law Review 86(2): 259-294 (2017)
- Bwackstone, Wiwwiam. Commentaries (1769)
- Schwartz, Bernard. The Great Rights of Mankind: A History of de American Biww of Rights, page 170 (Rowman & Littwefiewd 1992).
- Patterson, John, uh-hah-hah-hah. The Biww of Rights: Powitics, Rewigion, and de Quest for Justice, page 84 (2004).
- "Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention" (June 16, 1788), in The Founders' Constitution
- David F. Forte. "The Heritage Guide to de Constitution: Cruew and Unusuaw Punishment". The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved Apriw 1, 2013.
- "8f Amendment Court Cases". Revowutionary War and Beyond. Retrieved 1 Apriw 2013.
- "More on Large Civiw Fines for Minor Viowations". FindLaw. Retrieved October 24, 2014.
- 18 U.S.C. § 982
- Sowoman, Matdew C. (February 1999). "The periws of minimawism: United States v. Bajakajian in de wake of de Supreme Court's civiw doubwe jeopardy excursion". Georgetown Law Journaw. Retrieved 2009-02-11.[permanent dead wink]
- Howe, Amy (November 21, 2018). "Argument preview: Justices to consider wheder Eighf Amendment ban on "excessive fines" appwies to de states". SCOTUSbwog. Retrieved November 21, 2018.
- Howe, Amy (November 28, 2018). "Argument anawysis: Court appears ready to ruwe dat Constitution's bar on excessive fines appwies to de states". SCOTUSbwog. Retrieved November 28, 2018.
- Federman, Cary. The Body and de State: Habeas Corpus and American Jurisprudence, page 99 (SUNY Press 2006).
- Congressionaw Gwobe, 39f Cong., 1st Sess., 2542 (1866) qwoted in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) (concurring opinion of Justice Dougwas). The same words of John Bingham had been qwoted in Justice Bwack's dissent in Adamson v. Cawifornia, 332 U.S. 46 (1947); Bwack and dree oder dissenting justices had unsuccessfuwwy urged in Adamson dat de Eighf Amendment and de rest of de Biww of Rights be appwied against de states.
- de Internationaw Justice Project. "Seminaw Cases – Brief Bank & Generaw Resources – de Internationaw Justice Project". Archived from de originaw on Apriw 28, 2003. Retrieved January 7, 2012.
- Wiwkinson, at 135 – 136.
- Mewusky, Andony and Pesto, Keif. Cruew and Unusuaw Punishment: Rights and Liberties Under de Law, page 87 (ABC-CLIO 2003).
- Finkew, Norman, uh-hah-hah-hah. Commonsense Justice: Jurors' Notions of de Law, page 138 (Harvard University Press 2001).
- The qwoted sentence is from de opinion of Justice Scawia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnqwist, in de water case of Harmewin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991).
- Dresswer, Joshua (2009). "9.04 (B)". Understanding Criminaw Law (Fiff ed.). LexisNexis. p. 98. ISBN 978-1-4224-2987-7.
- Miwwer, Wiwbur. The Sociaw History of Crime and Punishment in America, p. 416 (SAGE 2012).
- Ryan, Meghan, uh-hah-hah-hah. "Does de Eighf Amendment Punishments Cwause Prohibit Onwy Punishments dat Are Bof Cruew and Unusuaw? Archived December 19, 2013, at de Wayback Machine.", Washington University Law Review, Vowume 87, p. 567 (2010).
- Denniston, Lywe (May 17, 2010). "Anawysis: A wimited break for juveniwes". SCOTUSbwog. Retrieved May 17, 2010.
- Mauro, Tony; Coywe, Marcia (May 17, 2010). "Justices ruwe on prison time for juveniwes, sex offenders". The Nationaw Law Journaw. Retrieved May 17, 2010.
- Miwwer v. Awabama, 567 U.S. ___ (2012).
- Greenhouse, Linda. "Supreme Court Rejects Deaf Penawty for Chiwd Rape", New York Times (June 6, 2008)
- Linda Greenhouse (Juwy 2, 2008). "In Court Ruwing on Executions, a Factuaw Fwaw". The New York Times. Retrieved Juwy 2, 2008.
- Statement of Justice Scawia wif whom de Chief Justice joins, respecting de deniaw of rehearing (October 1, 2008).
- Miwwion, Joewwe. Raciaw Issues in Criminaw Justice: The Case of African Americans, page 180 (Greenwood 2003).
- Pawmer, Louis. The Deaf Penawty: An American Citizen's Guide to Understanding Federaw and State Laws, page 14 (McFarwand 1998).
- Wawton was overruwed on oder grounds by Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002)
- "SOLEM v. HELM". Findwaw.
- Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. ____ (2008).
- Roberts, Jane. "Scawia Defends U.S. Judiciary" Archived December 19, 2013, at de Wayback Machine., Scripps Howard News Service (December 18, 2013).
- Stinneford, John, uh-hah-hah-hah. "The Originaw Meaning of 'Unusuaw': The Eighf Amendment as a Bar to Cruew Innovation", Nordwestern University Law Review, Vow. 102, No. 4 (2008).
- "Constitutionawizing de Harm Principwe". SSRN 1300356. Missing or empty
- Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F. 2d 571 - Court of Appeaws, 8f Circuit 1968.
- Besswer, John D. "Revisiting Beccaria's Vision: The Enwightenment, America's Deaf Penawty, and de Abowition Movement", Nordwestern Journaw of Law & Sociaw Powicy, Vowume 4, Issue 2, Articwe 1 (2009)
- John D. Besswer, The Birf of American Law: An Itawian Phiwosopher and de American Revowution (Durham, NC: Carowina Academic Press)
- Harmewin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991). Scawia wrote: "If 'cruew and unusuaw punishments' incwuded disproportionate punishments, de separate prohibition of disproportionate fines (which are certainwy punishments) wouwd have been entirewy superfwuous." Moreover, "There is wittwe doubt dat dose who framed, proposed, and ratified de Biww of Rights were aware of such provisions [outwawing disproportionaw punishments], yet chose not to repwicate dem."
- Epstein, Richard. "The Constitution’s Vanishing Act", Defining Ideas (December 16, 2013).
- Originaw Meaning: Cruew and Unusuaw Punishments – LOC Historian PA Madison