'Unusual' Punishment
nclib:
What would be regarded as 'unusual' punishment (i.e. not cruel, but unusual)? Has there ever been a case regarding this?
Gabu:
It seems to me that the criteria for an "unusual punishment" is pretty simple: it's a punishment that is not often given: hence, out of the usual.
Alcon:
I've never understood the usefulness of this portion of the Constitution made much sense. What is inherently wrong with unusual punishments, and aren't all punishments definitionally unusual unless they were widely practised back in 1776?
Emsworth:
The Supreme Court has never attempted to distinguish between "cruel" punishments and "unusual" punishments. Instead, it has always considered the phrase "cruel and unusual" as a unified whole.
There was one case ( Harmelin v. Michigan) in which the Supreme Court found a penalty cruel, but not unusual. The defendant had been sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for cocaine possession. Speaking for the Court, Justice Scalia concluded, "Severe, mandatory penalties may be cruel, but they are not unusual in the constitutional sense, having been employed in various forms throughout the Nation's history."
Quote from: Alcon on December 28, 2005, 07:35:25 AM
I've never understood the usefulness of this portion of the Constitution made much sense. What is inherently wrong with unusual punishments, and aren't all punishments definitionally unusual unless they were widely practised back in 1776?
The text of the Eighth Amendment seems to indicate that a punishment must be both cruel and unusual in order to be unconstitutional.
ilikeverin:
Quote from: Emsworth on December 28, 2005, 03:21:57 PM
The text of the Eighth Amendment seems to indicate that a punishment must be both cruel and unusual in order to be unconstitutional.
So if someone was sentenced to death by heart disease for a speeding ticket, it wouldn't be unconstitutional? ;)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page