eighth

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.

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.

Alex – The Eighth Amendment

Video

Written Component

Context

Ratified on December 15, 1791, the Eighth Amendment states that, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The history of the ideas in this clause can be traced back to even before the Articles of Confederation were written; in 1689, the British government adopted a bill of rights that included protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The original United States Constitution did not offer the same protection, instead giving the federal government the power to create federal crimes and punish perpetrators. However, many opponents of the Constitution expressed the fear that giving Congress this power would eventually lead to corruption and the use of punishment as a method of oppression. As such, the Constitution was amended to include protection against cruel and unusual punishment. 

 

Common Interpretation

As suggested by its title, the Eighth Amendment forbids Congress from imposing unjustifiably harsh punishments on criminal defendants. This protection can be divided into two categories: cruel and unusual punishment, which refers to penalties that involve unnecessary infliction of pain or suffering, and disproportionate punishment, which refers to penalties that are disproportionate to the severity of the offense committed. “Cruel and unusual punishments” are commonly interpreted as punishments that are fundamentally barbaric or lack a legitimate penological purpose; these are the types of punishments that would violate the Eighth Amendment. However, the courts’ definition of what constitutes excessive barbarism has shifted throughout the time since the Eighth Amendment was ratified.

 

Matters for Debate

The vague language of the Eighth Amendment has allowed for certain debates to consistently surface in contemporary discussions regarding cruel and unusual punishment. One of these debates questions what the current standard is for determining if a punishment is barbaric enough to violate the Eighth Amendment—whether the most important consideration is what was accepted when the Amendment was ratified in 1791, current public opinion, or the subjective morality of the courts. One progressive argument relies on the concept of “evolving standards of decency,” which asserts that the Court should consider contemporary shifts in societal attitudes and public opinion, rather than the originally intended meanings of America’s Founding Fathers. However, another prominent argument is that a punishment can be judged by its length of practice; essentially, a punishment deemed acceptable by multiple generations of Americans is still Constitutional until it falls out of practice for multiple generations, at which point it can be labeled cruel and unusual.  

 

Significance

Some of the ideas in the Constitution, but particularly in the Eighth Amendment, reflect ideas expressed by John Locke in his writing. Locke asserted that individuals possess certain inalienable rights, and that the primary purpose of the government is to protect these rights. As such, he proposed a separation of powers in order to ensure no one branch of government becomes too powerful and threatens individual liberty. This is, in essence, the goal of the Eighth Amendment: to ensure the federal government does not have enough power to oppress individuals through cruel and unusual punishment.

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.