Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment (3C) PDF

***8^th^ AMENDMENT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT*** ***3C*** - Applies to both state and federal governments - excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments are not allowed - originally meant to prevent torture and terrible execution methods used by the British...

***8^th^ AMENDMENT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT*** ***3C*** - Applies to both state and federal governments - excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments are not allowed - originally meant to prevent torture and terrible execution methods used by the British Crown - the Supreme Court interprets based on society's evolving standards of decency - the case of *Trop v. Dulles* (1958) **I. Death penalty** **A. Death Penalty Ban** - death penalty used for some crimes trough history - several Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s -- limitation of the use of the death penalty - 1972 - stopped all capital punishment by Supreme Court - the case of ***Furman v. Georgia*** (1972) - Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 - the death penalty was unconstitutional - Majority: the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment - because it was applied in random and unfair ways, especially concerning race - the first time the Supreme Court ruled against capital punishment - Court also mentioned a possibility of new laws that will make the death penalty constitutional again (e. g. new standard guidelines for juries deciding sentences) - the Furman decision wasn\'t complete ban **B**. **Reinstatement of the Death Penalty** - 1976 -- case ***Gregg v. Georgia*** - Supreme Court -- the death penalty is not always unconstitutional - it can serve purposes like retribution and deterrence - approval of new Georgia's rules for the death penalty - rules reduced the problem of random and unfair application - death penalty must not involve unnecessary pain or be excessively severe compared to the crime - the death penalty should not be imposed in an arbitrary manner - need of strict rules for penalty - consideration of penalty in case of murder - after the case - After the Gregg decision and the end of the death penalty moratorium - Important questions answered by the Supreme Court - when the death penalty is \"grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime\" - crimes and offenders can be punished by death - when carrying out the death penalty involves \"unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain\" - what methods of execution are constitutionally permissible - most executions in the United States have been carried out by the states - From 1976 through November 30, 2020, states have executed 1,516 individuals - 22 states + D. C. do not have the death penalty - New Hampshire abolished in 2019, but there's one person waiting for death penalty - Virginia abolished in March 2021. - **1. Proportionality Requirement** - 1977 -- case ***Coker v. Georgia*** - Supreme Court decided: [punishment must fit the crime] - If the penalty is too harsh compared to the crime, it violates the Eighth Amendment\'s ban - To decide if a punishment is **proportional**, the Court looks at three factors: - The severity of the crime and the harshness of the penalty - How the jurisdiction punishes other criminals - How other jurisdictions punish the same crime - **2. Principle of Individualized Sentencing** - the jury must: - consider the specific circumstances of the criminal - find an aggravating factor based on the facts of the case - The court must have a personalized sentencing process - 2002 -- case ***Ring v. Arizona*** - the Supreme Court: unconstitutional for a judge, without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance needed for the death penalty - **3. Method of Execution** - Legislatures can decide the method of execution - BUT it cannot cause unnecessary or wanton pain - 28 states use lethal injection as the primary method - alternatives like electrocution, lethal gas, hanging, and firing squad - In some states, inmates can choose their method of execution (depending on the circumstances) - 2008 - case ***Baze v. Rees*** - the Supreme Court: lethal injection is not cruel and unusual punishment - The Court used an \"objectively intolerable\" test to decide if a method of execution violates the 8^th^ Amendment - The legality of lethal injection reaffirmed in in the 2015 -- case ***Glossip v. Gross*** - 2019 - ***Bucklew v. Precythe*** - the Supreme Court: rejection of death row inmate Russell Bucklew\'s challenge to Missouri\'s lethal injection protocol - Bucklew suffers from a rare medical condition (cavernous hemangioma) - tumors in his head, neck, and throat - lethal injection would be extremely painful - suggested nitrogen gas as an alternative method - examination of the historical understanding of the 8^th^ Amendment and its previous decisions in *Baze v. Rees* and *Glossip v. Gross* - = lethal injection protocols in Kentucky and Oklahoma - [Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a painless death] - Justice Breyer (dissent) - evidence that executing Bucklew by lethal injection would cause his tumors to rupture, leading him to choke and suffocate on his own blood for several minutes before dying - 2021 -- case ***Johnson v. Precythe*** - Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Ernest Johnson - Johnson -- epilepsy (caused by a brain tumor and surgery) - argued that lethal injection would cause him severe seizures and proposed execution by firing squad instead - The Eighth Circuit Court rejected his request, citing *Bucklew v. Precythe* decision - 2022 -- case ***Nance v. Ward*** - Supreme Court affirmed that federal civil rights suits can be used to challenge state execution methods - Michael Nance (prisoner in Georgia) - lethal injection would cause him severe pain due to his compromised veins - alternative: execution by firing squad - The Court ruled in his favor, allowing his challenge to proceed under federal civil rights law rather than habeas corpus proceedings - Georgia - firing squad executions are not allowed under state law - Argument: Nance was trying to invalidate his death sentence - Need of filing multiple habeas petitions, potentially making their execution challenges untimely - majority opinion (Justice Kagan): rejected Georgia's argument - prisoners must show that their proposed alternative method is feasible - If the state wants to carry out the death sentence, it can pass legislation to allow the proposed method - Dissents: - if Nance's civil rights suit succeeded, Georgia officials would be unable to carry out his sentence without changing state law - **4. Classes of Persons Ineligible for the Death Penalty** - 2002 -- case ***Atkins v. Virginia*** - The Supreme Court ruled: mentally deficient criminals is unconstitutional - Their mental handicap lessens the severity of their crime, making the death penalty disproportionately severe - 2009 -- case ***Bobby v. Bies*** - States can hold hearings to find out their mental capacity before the Atkins decision - on people who were labeled as mentally retarded - 2014 -- case ***Hall v. Florida*** - The Court ruled that an IQ threshold alone cannot determine intellectual disability for death penalty eligibility - 2005 -- case ***Roper v. Simmons*** - The Supreme Court: the death penalty for all juvenile offenders is unconstitutional - due to their lack of maturity, vulnerability to negative influences, and incomplete character development - Juveniles have diminished culpability for their crimes - 2010 -- case ***Graham v. Florida*** - The Court held that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses. **II. Federal Death Penalty** - ***Federal Death Penalty Act*** of 1994 (FDPA) - part of the *Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act* - effective since September 13, 1994 - act set constitutional procedures for imposing the death penalty for 60 offenses under federal law - [divided into three main categories]: - Homicide offenses - Espionage and treason - Non-homicidal narcotics offenses - drug-related killings and political assassinations are not explicitly included - From 2003 to 2020: no federal prisoners were executed - 13 federal prisoners were executed in the last year of the Trump administration - July 2020 federal government resumed executions (ending a 17-year pause) - U.S. military justice system has the death penalty as an option - no one has been executed since 1961 - X April 2020 - 4 individuals are on the military\'s death row - Native American tribes can opt into the federal death penalty for crimes in Indian Country, but most have not chosen to do so - **1. Methods of Execution** - Lethal injection is currently the only method (on federal level) - X November 2020 -- DOJ issued a new rule allowing federal executions to be carried out using [any method] consistent with federal law, including electrocution, lethal gas, and firing squad. - **2. Federal Crimes Punishable by Death** - Need of revision by Attorney General's Review Committee on Capital Cases - Also need of input from the DOJ\'s Capital Case Section - And approval by the Attorney General - According to the U.S. Code - murder is a federal capital offense if committed under certain conditions - Some federal capital crimes, like espionage and treason, do not necessarily involve killing someone - since the FDPA: the DOJ has only sought the death penalty for murder - All current federal death row inmates -- various types of murder - the most common being drug-related killings - e g. Dylann Roof -- killed 9 church members in Charleston, SC, in 2015 **III. Public opinion of the Death Penalty** - opinions change based on how questions are asked in surveys - In 2020 -- 55% - they support the death penalty for someone convicted of murder - In 2019 - asked to choose between the death penalty and life imprisonment without the possibility of parole - 36% preferred the death penalty - 60% chose life imprisonment without parole **IV. Juvenile Life Without Parole** - The Eighth Amendment - ban on cruel and unusual punishments - determines penalties - usually decided by a judge in a separate proceeding - some states have juries - Some crimes carry mandatory minimum sentences (a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole is possible) - Juvenile offenders - includes any criminal defendant who was under 18 years old at the time of the offense - The SC - several opinions outlining constitutional limitations on punishing juvenile offenders - Case Roper v. Simmons - juvenile offenders may not constitutionally be sentenced to death - In *Graham v. Florida* - juveniles may not be sentenced to life without parole for non-homicide offenses. - ***Miller v. Alabama*** - The SC - struck down laws in two states - imposed mandatory sentences of life without parole for juveniles convicted of certain murder offenses - juvenile defendant can still receive life without parole if: - he or she is convicted of a murder offense and - his or her crime reflects "permanent incorrigibility" - Justice Kagan - two main strands of precedent related to proportional punishment. - First Line of Precedents: - Imposes categorical bans on certain sentencing practices where there is a mismatch between the culpability of a group of offenders and the severity of the punishment. - For juvenile offenders, the Court held that the harshest punishments are rarely or never justified due to their **lesser culpability**. - Second Line of Precedents - requires **individualized consideration** of the defendant\'s characteristics and the specifics of the offense - Juvenile offenders are less culpable for their actions, and therefore, the harshest penalties should not be imposed without carefully considering their unique circumstances. - The SC - "the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders" - In specific cases, it is possible - The court must: distinguish between children, as each is different. - It must consider: age and maturity, family environment, circumstances of the act, methods, and subsequent rehabilitation - occasions for sentencing juveniles to this harshest possible penalty will be uncommon - ***Montgomery v. Louisiana*** - the decision to ban life imprisonment sentences has retroactive effect -- leading to resentencing and potential releases. **V. Restorative Justice Movement** - Restorative justice - approach to dealing with crime that focuses on repairing the harm caused by criminal behavior - It brings together the offender, the victim, their families, and the community - restore balance and harmony - This process involves mediation and conflict resolution - the offender has the chance to learn and change - Restorative justice was introduced by American psychologist Albert Eglash (1959) - negative relationship between the victim and the offender - the crime if left unresolved, harms both parties - R. justice helps to both parties - Victim-offender reconciliation - A key component of restorative justice  - the victim and offender engage in a dialogue about the crime and its impact - victims and offenders to meet and talk about the crime with the help of a mediator - they create a plan for the offender to make things right - mostly used for nonviolent crimes  **VI. Public Health Quarantine Model** - Dr. Greg Caruso (philosopher) - criticizes retributivism - = idea that wrongdoers deserve punishment simply because they knowingly did wrong. - arguing that criminals lack the free will and moral responsibility required to justify retributive punishment - An alternative to retributivism - public health quarantine model - emphasizing prevention, rehabilitation, and social justice - Goals are: - Protect society by preventing future harm - Prioritize rehabilitation and remediation of offenders - Seen as more humane and just than retributive justice - Dr. Greg Caruso believes that instead of punishing criminals just because they deserve it (retributivism), society should focus on prevention, rehabilitation, and fairness. His \"public health quarantine model\" treats crime like a public health issue, aiming to protect society while helping offenders improve. It uses science and psychology to guide fair and humane consequences, making it a practical and ethical alternative to traditional punishment. **Case Summary and Notes: *Jones v. Mississippi* (2021)** - Brett Jones, aged 15, stabbed his grandfather to death during an argument. He claimed self-defense but was convicted of murder. - Mississippi law mandated life imprisonment without parole for juvenile offenders. (2004) - *Miller v. Alabama* (2012) - prohibited mandatory life without parole for juveniles Jones's case was sent back for resentencing. - Despite testimony about Jones's history of abuse, mental health issues, and rehabilitation efforts, the court resentenced him to life without parole. - BUT he made no specific finding of "permanent incorrigibility." - Legal Issue - did the Eighth Amendment require a specific finding of \"permanent incorrigibility\" before sentencing a juvenile to life without parole? - The SC - judge does **not** need to make a separate finding of permanent incorrigibility to impose life without parole on a juvenile. - Majority Opinion (Justice Kavanaugh): cited Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana, emphasizing that neither case required explicit findings of incorrigibility. - Concurring Opinion (Justice Thomas): Argued that the Court should explicitly overrule Montgomery v. Louisiana because it conflicted with Miller and the Constitution. - The ruling narrowed the interpretation of Miller and Montgomery, sparking criticism for weakening protections for juvenile offenders. - Legislative reform efforts continue to seek more lenient approaches to juvenile sentencing.