eighth-amendment

Campbell Langdon – Amendment VIII

Video

Written Component

The Eighth Amendment: Safeguarding Justice and Human Dignity

The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1791 and is a part of the Bill of Rights, is a crucial supporter of justice and the defense of human rights. The amendment forbids the use of cruel and unusual punishments and places restrictions on the use of exorbitant fines and bail for US residents. The founding fathers were committed to building a just society that upheld individual liberty. They recognized the significance of shielding citizens from cruel punishments by drawing on important texts like the English Bill of Rights of 1689. The colonies’ arbitrary and cruel treatment under British rule during the colonial era prompted the need to establish a constitutional bulwark against those similar behaviors.

The Eighth Amendment exemplifies the principles of proportionality, human dignity, and the evolving standards of decency. By prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, it prevents the state from resorting to barbaric or excessively harsh penalties, ensuring that punishment aligns with the gravity of the offense. This provision reinforces the idea that all individuals, regardless of their transgressions, possess inherent dignity that should never be violated.

It also prevents the imposition of excessive fines and bail in addition to outlawing cruel penalties. These restrictions guard against the state’s potential misuse of power and advance equitable justice for all by shielding people from being unfairly subjected to disproportionate financial penalties.

This Amendment’s applicability and interpretation have been the focus of numerous court cases over the years. The definition of “cruel and unusual punishment” is one of the main areas of disagreement. Some contend that the amendment should change to reflect the standards of society as they change, while others push for a rigorous reading based on original intent.

The use of the death penalty has been at the center of much controversy. Opponents argue that capital punishment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, given the possibility of wrongful convictions, racial disparities, and the inherent cruelty of the act itself. Supporters, on the other hand, contend that it serves as a just response to heinous crimes and provides closure to victims’ families.

In Furman vs Georgia, the Supreme Court determined that the death penalty was constitutional if juries were given standards to guide them in their sentencing deliberations. However, they also deemed existing legal constructions for the death penalty unconstitutional. 

Similar discussions have taken place over the conditions of incarceration, such as extended periods of time spent in solitary confinement or limited access to quality medical treatment. While defenders of the techniques claim they are important for preserving security and order in correctional facilities, detractors claim they are in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The Eighth Amendment continues to be a pillar of justice and human rights, providing crucial safeguards against unusually harsh penalties, disproportionate fines, and bail. While there are still arguments about how it should be interpreted, its core goals—to protect human dignity, advance proportionality, and uphold a just society—remain constant.

Parker – Eighth Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution is interesting and especially difficult to grapple with because of the lack of clarity in the writing of it. It reads, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Prior to the Revolutionary War, the Americans had been under British rule and had witnessed different forms of harsh punishments. They also wanted to protect individual liberties as much as possible and by preventing “Excessive bail,” they took some power away from the government because ultimately, the colonists were still afraid of giving too much power to the government. Although confusing, there are only so many possible interpretations of such simple writing. A common one is that bail should not be priced at a very high amount and that there would be a prohibition of inhumane and barbaric punishments and consequences.

The problem with the phrasing of the Eighth Amendment is the phrasing is overly simple to the point where it is nearly impossible to know how the author of this section intended for it to be interpreted. For example, Some people think that a “Cruel” punishment is going to jail in the first place and others think that the death penalty falls under “Cruel” punishments. A common claim made by legal scholars is that the treatment of the Eighth Amendment should evolve over time as society changes. Obviously the definition of “Cruel and unusual” will change and has changed over time. When the constitution was being written, people were still getting branded and hanged in public. Those forms of punishment haven’t been used in the states in an extremely long time. 

A famous court case that involves the Eighth Amendment is Atkins vs. Virginia. The case dealt with the question: is it cruel or unusual punishment to sentence people with intellectual disabilities to the death penalty? Ultimately, it was deemed cruel and or unusual because it was decided that people with intellectual disabilities lacked understanding of what the causes of their actions were and that they did not understand the consequences of them. A major factor in the decision of this case was in fact, the eighth amendment because ultimately, putting mentally challenged people to the death penalty was deemed “Cruel and unusual.”  

This year, we have learned about many forms of harsh and brutal punishments, so this was especially interesting to see that a country tried to mitigate them. It’s also fascinating to see how hard the authors tried to move away from British themes and practices; such as “Cruel and unusual” punishments. Out of all the arguments surrounding the Eighth Amendment, I find that the perception of it should and will continue to change over time. In my opinion, it is completely irrational to treat the Eighth Amendment like it was treated back in the eighteenth century because we’re not living in the eighteenth century. Dealing with issues from an eighteenth century perspective today, in the twenty-first century, is almost laughable if you think about how much has changed in the last 250 years. If I could, I would keep this clause in the constitution, but I would make sure to change the language to something more specific and have it reflect the current time period. It would also make sense to add something like, “The eighth amendment will be amended every 50 years” or something of that nature. Overall, I do think that the Eighth Amendment is important to the constitution, but with some changes, it could be much more valuable and applicable to solving different cases.

Alessandra – Amendment VIII

Video

Written Component

The eighth amendment is a part of the rights of the accused. It supports the 5th amendment: due process. The concepts were first seen in the British bill of rights in 1689. George Mason included it in the draft of the Bill of Rights in 1776, and it was ratified in 1791. This amendment reflects the Enlightenment ideals of individual rights, and an attempt to limit federal government power. It echoes Voltaire’s ideas of fair treatment of individuals. It was added to protect criminals from excessive punishment. It is important to note the connections between the 5th through 8th Amendments: specifically the fifth, being due process, which the 8th is a big part of.

The clause grants protection over excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishments. This clause was needed because there was fear of unproportional repercussions for small crimes. The meanings of the first two concepts in the amendment are generally self explanatory, but the third one, the phrase ‘cruel and unusual’ has debated meaning because the Constitution does not directly tell us what it means. Two main viewpoints have evolved on interpreting this phrase. 

The first, being the originalist mindset, supports that the definition of cruel and unusual should be upheld from 1791, when this amendment was ratified. For example, Justice Thomas and former Justice Scalia believe that the standards of cruelty from the year this amendment was ratified should continue to be the standard for what is okay today. They also believe that the Clause does not ban disproportionate punishments, but only extremely brutal ones; they believe that the death penalty is fine because in 1791 it was commonly used and it is included in the constitution, in the due process clause.

The non-originalists believe the opposite: that the definition of cruel and unusual should grow and change as the nation does. I personally agree with this and I believe that an addition, clarifying that the current justices in the Supreme Court should be able to decide what constitutes cruel and unusual, would be helpful. I think it is unfair to keep standards for punishments from 1791, a time in which much more was widely accepted, such as slavery and the mistreatment of Native Americans. I believe the Constitution should have room to grow and change as society does.

One Supreme Court case that illustrates the 8th Amendment is Graham vs Florida. A 16 year old was sentenced to life in prison for armed robbery, and it was argued that this was cruel and unusual punishment for a juvenile. The Supreme Court ruled in favor, and he was resentenced to 25 years in prison. This case set a new precedent that sentencing juveniles to life in prison with no parole for a non homicidal offense is unconstitutional. This gives us one definition of cruel and unusual, being sentencing somebody who still has a chance for rehabilitation given that they are not yet an adult.