Post by gellibee on May 31, 2007 11:36:39 GMT -5
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that as written it applies only to punishments that are both cruel and unusual, and that punishments that are unusual but not cruel, or cruel but not unusual, are constitutional.[citation needed]
In general the interpretation of each of the two words is in keeping with the basic legal maxim that the "punishment should fit the crime".
The term "cruel" is necessarily flexible according to the circumstances, since all punishments are inherently cruel to some greater or lesser degree. The "unusual" provision has proven easier to interpret: providing that persons will not be subjected to arbitrary, humorous, or capricious punishment outside the normal course of the law (for example, tarring and feathering). Another way to make the punishment usual is to simply use it more often.
Though it's been a part of the law in the United States of America since its inception, by the twentieth century many people in the U.S. came to consider capital punishment per se to be a cruel and unusual punishment. As of 2006, twelve U.S. states have legislatively abolished the death penalty, and others have specifically prohibited certain methods of execution, e.g. by electrocution, by hanging, etc. The Supreme Court has ruled that the application of the death penalty, in certain circumstances — such as the execution of a minor under the age of 18, or of a mentally handicapped person, or for any crime other than murder - is unconstitutional, regardless of the existence of other aggravating circumstances. See also: Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court also ruled in 1983 that the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for a non-violent felony may constitute cruel and unusual punishment, although a subsequent decision represented a partial retreat from that position.
At the time the Eighth Amendment was written, capital punishment was in common use, in America, in Great Britain, and in Western Europe. There also existed punishments that were generally considered cruel and unusual, such as hanging, drawing, and quartering; burning at the stake; and impalement. These were so cruel that they were rarely inflicted, which was their point: if a punishment was common, it would lose its terrible aspect, but if it was only inflicted a few times a century, on the worst of criminals, their moans and screams would give second thoughts to anyone who might consider repeating their crimes.
In the European Union, on the other hand, prohibition of the death penalty has been made a fundamental condition which must either be passed into the law of states hoping to join, or, as in the case of Latvia, its use be subject to a moratorium. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (which currently carries no legal standing) states in its second article that "Everyone has the right to life. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed."
Thanks to Karen for this.
In general the interpretation of each of the two words is in keeping with the basic legal maxim that the "punishment should fit the crime".
The term "cruel" is necessarily flexible according to the circumstances, since all punishments are inherently cruel to some greater or lesser degree. The "unusual" provision has proven easier to interpret: providing that persons will not be subjected to arbitrary, humorous, or capricious punishment outside the normal course of the law (for example, tarring and feathering). Another way to make the punishment usual is to simply use it more often.
Though it's been a part of the law in the United States of America since its inception, by the twentieth century many people in the U.S. came to consider capital punishment per se to be a cruel and unusual punishment. As of 2006, twelve U.S. states have legislatively abolished the death penalty, and others have specifically prohibited certain methods of execution, e.g. by electrocution, by hanging, etc. The Supreme Court has ruled that the application of the death penalty, in certain circumstances — such as the execution of a minor under the age of 18, or of a mentally handicapped person, or for any crime other than murder - is unconstitutional, regardless of the existence of other aggravating circumstances. See also: Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court also ruled in 1983 that the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for a non-violent felony may constitute cruel and unusual punishment, although a subsequent decision represented a partial retreat from that position.
At the time the Eighth Amendment was written, capital punishment was in common use, in America, in Great Britain, and in Western Europe. There also existed punishments that were generally considered cruel and unusual, such as hanging, drawing, and quartering; burning at the stake; and impalement. These were so cruel that they were rarely inflicted, which was their point: if a punishment was common, it would lose its terrible aspect, but if it was only inflicted a few times a century, on the worst of criminals, their moans and screams would give second thoughts to anyone who might consider repeating their crimes.
In the European Union, on the other hand, prohibition of the death penalty has been made a fundamental condition which must either be passed into the law of states hoping to join, or, as in the case of Latvia, its use be subject to a moratorium. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (which currently carries no legal standing) states in its second article that "Everyone has the right to life. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed."
Thanks to Karen for this.