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.