Punishment as it pertains to the eighth Amendment

Introduction

The eighth amendment of the US constitution is somewhat confusing, as it does not give the interpretation of how crimes should be handled. The amendment focuses on protecting the rights of the law offenders, thus allowing them to enjoy their rights as the citizens of the US. In addition, the amendment has also greatly reduced the authority of the federal governments to issue strict punishments on criminals. The amendment has consequently become confusing, since it does not clearly explain, how certain crimes should be punished, and how crime should be categorized. Due to that reason, this paper will explain the reason as to the why eighth amendment was necessary, before looking at death penalty and punishment according to the amendment.

The amendment has limited the federal government from issuing unbending penalties on criminal suspects, either on bond prices of chastisement from a crime or even a sentence (John & Bryan, 2017). As clearly stated, the federal government has been limited from imposing harsh penalties on criminal defendants, thus allowing them to reasonable punishments and bail.

The clause which deals with the cruel and unusual punishment is the most significant, and also the most controversial in the Eighth amendment (Bessler, 2012). The clause is somehow masked in mystery, in the sense that it does not provide a clear definition of what unusual and cruel punishments are. In addition, the clause does not also provide ways through which the cruelty of a punishment can be measured (Roza, n.d.). Similarly, it does not also explain why, it is significant for people to be concerned if a given punishment is cruel or not. This clause did not therefore provide a clear explanation as to why stiff penalties should not be imposed on criminal defendants, how stiff penalties can be measured, and why sentenced criminals should not be punished harshly (Death Penalty Information Centre, 2011).

Prior to the Eighth amendment of the constitution, the constitution had made the federal government more powerful, in the sense that it would impose charges and punishment on criminals, without being questioned (John & Bryan, 2017). The aim of the constitution was to allow federal government to be able to decide, on which punishment was necessary for criminals and criminal defendants, based on the scope of the crime (Murray, 2017). However, this did not turn out to be the case, since the federal government used this laws as a means of imposing harsh punishments on criminal defendants. In addition, torture in most states, became the best way of getting information from an accused person (Bessler, 2012).

Criminal defendants were usually tortured, in order to provide the authorities with necessary information to aid in the investigation. In as much as this was a way of getting information from the criminal defendant, it was not lawful, since the criminal defendant had not yet been proved guilty (Bessler, 2012). In the same case, an innocent person, who may be accused of committing a crime, would be tortured, in order to provide information which he or she knew nothing about. In addition, those convicted of federal crimes were also tortured, thus making their lives unbearable (Roza, n.d.). The constitution had not restricted the congress from coming up with harsh punishments, the congress would therefore come up with strict rules, based on the crimes which it thought were serious, hence harshly punishing the offenders (John & Bryan, 2017).

Due to the cruel nature of punishments which the congress was using, it was necessary for that clause to be amended, in order to limit the congress from making harsh laws against the criminals. This consequently led to the adoption of the Eighth amendment in the year 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights. In this amendment, the issues of excessive fines and bails are also dealt with, thus imposing the right amount of fines (John & Bryan, 2017). The congress had imposed very high fines and bails, which did not follow the due process of the law, thus, making it unlawful for the charges to be relevant. In addition, compared to the crime which the criminal defendant had committed, the charges were too high, hence they did not make any sense. This amendment was consequently adopted, in order to deal with such issues, and to make sure that each and every law which the congress makes, is lawful, through following the due process of the law (Murray, 2017). 

The clause also provided that, other forms of punishments should be used, instead of focusing on cruel punishments, which do not help in correcting those convicted of federal crimes (Roza, n.d.). Capital punishment has however proved to be a contradicting type of punishment, since the eighth amendment does not clearly stipulate if capital punishment is actually a cruel punishment, and if it is not applicable to human beings (Bessler, 2012). Different judges of the Supreme have consequently interpreted capital punishment differently, based on the eighth amendment, thus leading to a controversy surrounding death penalty (Murray, 2017). Nonetheless, majority have stated that capital punishment does not fall under unusual and cruel punishment.

The clause under the eighth amendment stated that before a capital punishment sentence is given, then the criminal should be allowed a discrete trial for sentencing, the ferociousness of the crime, and the surrounding factors which may include the criminal’s background. In Furman v. Georgia (1972) the court rested on a decision in which the results were 5-2, whereby the amendment disqualified the individual infliction of death penalty, this move consequently obligated states to create new laws, which were responsible for giving both judges and the jury standards deliberating to which the punishment could be enacted (Bessler, 2012). In the majority, the 5 five judges reiterated that the intent of the clause was to do away with illogical punishment. This was however met with opposition from the two minority judges who stated that, the main objective of the clause was to bar punishments which were illogical and torturous, and not punishments such as Capital punishment.

In Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the court came to a conclusion that capital punishment was not in any way in violation of the amendment. The majority of the judges agreed that the capital was not linked to illogical punishment, neither was it torturous, hence qualifying not to be against the amendment. On the other hand, in Woodson v. North Carolina (1976) the court upheld that any given law which left the jury without option was considered unlawful (Bessler, 2012). The Supreme made different decisions over the years, however in the year 1983, in a case involving Solem and Helm, Justice Powell stated that the ban on unfair and illogical punishments were part of the English Bill of Rights of the year 1689. Solem’s case was later on overturned, whereby Chief justice Scalia reaffirmed that the main intent of the revision was to invalidate penalties imposed by judges, which were not acclaimed by the law.  

The Supreme Court kept on meandering over the years, without giving the actual interpretation of the eighth amendment, thus making the amendment controversial up to date. What is not clear, is that the death penalty has never been proved as either an unusual punishment or cruel. This has consequently made it hard for different states to understand where the death penalty falls, and what should be done in order to deal with certain crimes (Roza, n.d.). Death penalty has however remained as a punishment, where some states are still using it as a mode of punishment. Nonetheless, different states use different methods of execution in capital punishment, with some states using lethal injection, electrocution and hanging, while others have abolished capital punishment, since they have adopted life sentences without parole (Murray, 2017).

The Eighth Amendment does not therefore allow people to choose how they should die, but it only provides alternatives of death penalty (Bessler, 2012). The confusion which exists in the Eighth Amendment is very critical, and it requires attention, in order to come up with clear interpretation of the death penalty. Due to this confusion, different states have consequently adopted the use of dissimilar methods of executing those sentenced to death. On the other hand, the manner of execution may be approved by a legislature, but the method may cause unwanted pain on the criminal (Roza, n.d.). On the other hand, federal courts have not ruled out the use of lethal injection, electrocution, and hanging as harsh methods of execution. This methods are therefore legal according the state and federal courts, however, the Supreme Court may rule against these methods of execution, if they are found to inflict pain on the criminal (Murray, 2017).        

The amendment limits the sentencing of people who are not considered eligible for this type of punishment. Mentally retarded criminals should not sentenced to death, since they are not eligible to this type of punishment (Bessler, 2012). In addition, children under the age of 18 years are not also eligible to this type of punishment, hence the penalty is not applicable to them. The reason as to why this penalty is not applicable to this group of people is consequently because of their capacity to think critically before doing something bad. For instance, mentally retarded persons cannot be able to make sane decisions, a factor which may make them to commit very serious crimes, such as murder, hence requiring them to be sentenced to death (Roza, n.d.). This amendment consequently cushions these type of people, because of their brain condition. Similarly, children may also commit serious crimes, but that may not be their main intention to commit such crimes. This therefore requires them to be pardoned of death penalty, as it is a very cruel form of punishment particularly when imposed to children (Murray, 2017).  

In as much as the amendment has not been clearly stated, most states have opted to use capital punishment according to the way they understand it. Similarly, some states have also interpreted the amendment differently thus using the methods of execution based on their understanding of cruel and torturous punishments. However, states such as Alaska and Michigan have done away with death penalties, because they understand capital punishment as torturous and cruel. In as much as states have reduced or dropped the methods of execution, there are no states which have passed laws allowing convicts to choose the method of execution. The method of execution used is based on the scope of the crime committed, hence some people may be executed through hanging, while others may be executed through electrocution, in the same state, based on the scope of the crimes they committed. Furthermore, some states have remained adamant, thus using the same methods of execution, without thinking about the dictates of the eighth amendment. The amendment has consequently helped in reducing torturous punishments and limiting the federal government from implementing cruel laws, but it has not allowed convicts to choose how to die.           

Conclusion

This paper has looked at the eighth amendment, which turns out to be a controversial law ever interpreted by the Supreme Court of the U.S. The amendment basically made in order to deal with cruel and unusual penalties imposed on criminal offenders, and those sentenced for serious crimes. However, the main aim of the amendment has not been understood, and this has been attributed to different interpretations. On the other hand, the amendment has really helped in limiting the federal government from imposing cruel penalties and punishments on criminals. Finally, the death penalty remains controversial, since different judges have interpreted the punishment differently, thus making it hard to understand if it is a cruel penalty of not.   

Reference

Death Penalty Information Centre (2011). Death Penalty Information Centre: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Capital Punishment.

John F, S. & Bryan, A. S. (2017). Common Interpretation: The Eighth Amendment: Excessive Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment.   

Bessler, J. D. (2012). Cruel & unusual: The American death penalty and the founders' Eighth Amendment. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Eighth Amendment: The Right to Mercy (ABDO Digital Hosted e-Book). (n.d.). New York: ABDO Digital.

Roza, G. (n.d.). The Eighth Amendment: Preventing Cruel and Unusual Punishment (e-Book). New York: Rosen Digital.

Murray, H. (2017). Preventing cruel and unusual punishment: The Eighth Amendment.