8th

The Eighth Amendment: What are the limits?

Video

Written Component

When the Constitution was ratified, it gave the federal government significantly more power than the Articles of Confederation had had. One of these powers was to decide what constituted a federal crime, and what the subsequent punishment would be. There were worries that the government would create and use torture to oppress citizens. For this reason, the Eighth Amendment was added. In its most basic form, the amendment stops the federal government from doing anything too harsh or barbarous; examples pointed out by debaters at that time include the Spanish Inquisition. Torture as a means of punishment was deemed unconstitutional, as was torture as a means to gain information or a confession. Additionally, the amendment prohibits the federal government from making bail money too expensive and from fining citizens excessively.

Despite the previous two points, the majority of debates surrounding the Eighth Amendment focus on the point surrounding punishment. When discussing this amendment, scholars argue if courts should judge punishments by the 1791 standards that were present during the amendment’s creation, or by modern standards. One scholar, John F. Stinneford, makes a case that the Eighth Amendment should be viewed through 1791 standards. He says that a more modern interpretation would allow the Supreme Court to use the vague interpretation to accomplish their own partisan goals, pointing to Judges Scalia and Thomas’s severely narrow definition of the Eighth Amendment to prove his point. On the contrary side of the argument, Bryan A. Stevenson argues that the Eighth Amendment should be updated in the minds of the court, in order to preserve equality and adjust to the standards of decency in America as they evolve over time. Stevenson uses concrete examples to point out that these notions have changed over time in the past, pointing out how, for example, whipping is now considered unconscionable.

In this fashion, the court needs to prohibit modern punishments that did not exist in 1791. He points out the practice of extended solitary confinement as an example of a punishment that had not been implemented in 1791, but he thinks would be considered cruel. He says that the Amendment serves the country well, but that it must be extended to more than just its historical context. Ultimately, Stevenson’s argument is more convincing, utilizing extremely relevant and specific examples of how the Eighth Amendment’s vagueness has been detrimental. Stinneford makes an interesting point on potential abuse in the Supreme Court, but we have some major disagreements – the main one being that he is worried about the abolition of the death penalty, which he argues is a justifiable punishment. Fundamentally, I disagree with that conclusion, as does Stevenson. Additionally, Stinneford argues that the Eighth Amendment has protected Americans from the federal government, but I’d argue that it has not actually stopped cruel and unusual punishments from occurring: one only needs to look at the government practicing solitary confinement, drug cocktails, the electric chair, or waterboarding. I certainly find these punishments cruel and unusual, and I can find no constitutional or moral justification for any of them, no matter the context surrounding the Eighth Amendment. Either the federal government admits that it does not follow this amendment, or the meaning of “cruel and unusual” is expanded and these practices are stopped.

Sorochi Constitution Project – 8th Amendment

Video

Written Component

Sorochi Sunday Ms. Lafuse World History I 2 June 2023 By granting powers not included in the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution strengthened the federal government. Federal crimes were established in the Constitution, and Congress had full power to define them and determine the appropriate punishments.

Congress’ authority over federal crimes worried some American leaders. At the time, no part of the Constitution regulated the punishments for federal crimes, leaving the possibility of Congress abusing their power. In response to fears of the federal government issuing oppressive punishments, the 8th Amendment was added to the Constitution. Part of the 8th Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments,” meaning criminals should not receive inhumane penalties for their crime. 

Debates have risen concerning how the words “cruel” and “unusual” should be interpreted. After defining these terms, the following question is: which standard, 1971, when the Bill of Rights was created, or modern day, should punishments be held to. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia believe that any punishment that was permissible in 1791 cannot be considered cruel or unusual. With their interpretation, capital punishment, while now controversial, would be considered Constitutional, since it was used in America during 1791.

Additionally, they believe that a punishment being disproportionate to crime committed does not necessarily mean the punishment is cruel. Conversely, Chief Justice Earl Warren believes interpretation of the clause should evolve over time to fit the changing standards of decency. He argues that a change in interpretation marks progress in society. Legal scholar John F. Stinneford disagrees with both Justices Thomas and Scalia, and Chief Justice Warren. He believes the meaning of cruel and unusual should fit the original public meaning.

According to him, the standard of cruelty the general public held in 1791 should be the standard judges use as they interpret the Constitution. In an attempt to preserve the original meaning, he also argues “unusual” should be interpreted as new or unprecedented, rather than rare. He claims that his interpretation is founded off of research into the original meaning of the 8th Amendment.  I find Chief Justice Warren’s interpretation most persuasive.

The other two interpretations discussed require one to understand the minds of people living the era of the Constitution, whether that be the framers or everyday people. However, both tasks seem very difficult to achieve in reality. Even with detailed research, discovering the exact thought process of the framers as they wrote the 8th amendment, let alone the average American in 1791, is improbable. Further, while historians have a better chance, with the brief and vague language of the 8th amendment, the average expertise of a judge may not be enough to reach a well-founded conclusion of any true original meaning. 

If I could amend this section, I would specify what is meant by “cruel”. To do this, I would list out some of the ways a punishment could be cruel, like so: a punishment that includes intentional torture or elongated killing, or is disproportionate in severity to the seriousness of the crime. I feel the word “cruel” is more important to the clause than “unusual”, as a punishment can be grossly inhumane, but also common.   

The 8th Amendment – Jojo

Video

Written Component

The 8th Amendment was created to ensure that the government had restrictions regarding punishing criminals so the punishments would not be out of proportion. The Amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” In simpler terms, this clause restricts what types of punishments the government could inflict upon criminals, such as asking for unreasonable amounts of bail or fines imposed that are disproportionate to the crime. The 8th Amendment was initially derived from the British Bill of Rights written a century before in 1689. The British Bill of Rights also included the clause “cruel and unusual punishment,” which American Politician George Mason got the idea to include in the Virginia Bill of Rights in 1776. This Amendment was instituted because the framers felt the need to have a clause limiting the federal courts’ prosecuting power. 

The two scholars, John F. Stinneford and Bryan A. Stevenson debated the meaning of the 8th Amendment in terms of what “cruel and unusual punishment” really means in today’s context and how this Amendment relates to the death penalty. Stinneford’s argument focuses on the views of Supreme Court justices Scalia and Thomas. Scalia and Thomas argue that in terms of the clause “cruel and unusual punishment,” the only acceptable punishments would be ones that were acceptable back when this Amendment was ratified in 1791. Those punishments also were not to be barbaric because that would violate the “cruel and unusual” part of the Amendment. Regarding the death penalty, they interpreted the Amendment in a way that did not prohibit it, but for someone to be put on death row, they had to be convicted by a grand jury through due process of law. As for Stevenson’s take on the Amendment, he interpreted that punishments had to be proportionate to the crime committed and up to modern standards of decency. His take on if the death penalty is constitutional is highly conditional because he argued that if the decision to sentence someone to death was influenced by racial, economic, or religious biases, then the death penalty is not constitutional. The conviction must be based entirely on facts and free of bias. 

A Supreme Court case that involved this clause was Atkins V.S Virginia. This case occurred in 2002 and concerned a man named Daryl Renard Atkins, who was tried for abduction, armed robbery, and murder. He was sentenced by the Supreme Court to be put to death. However, the Virginia Supreme Court called for a second hearing because they argued that Atkins was mentally disabled and the death penalty was “cruel and unusual punishment.” As a result, the Supreme Court changed the verdict and took him off death row, creating the standard that executing mentally disabled persons is “cruel and unusual punishment.” The interpretations of this Amendment are varied, but Stevenson’s argument demonstrates how the clause should be interpreted with modern problems and standards to properly sentence offenders. The focal point of debate surrounding this Amendment is the constitutionality of the Death Penalty. Unfortunately, no definitive answer can be given about whether it is constitutional because it greatly depends on the crime committed. Nevertheless, this Amendment is crucial in the trial and conviction processes of the United States because it ensures proportionate and constitutional punishment is apportioned.