8th Amendment

The death penalty is an archaic procedure which operates on a rampant racial bias. Its use is not only tremendously expensive but also ineffective in complying to its purpose : deterring crime and controlling criminal behavior. The courts have struggled to define “ cruel and unusual,” because the term is ultimately vague and the definitions applied to terms like cruel and unusual change over time. Customs also change over time as societies viewpoints and ideologies adapt to into the future. An example of changes in the definition about the 8th amendment is seen in the landmark case of Weems vs United States (1910), where Weems was imprisoned for falsifying a public and official document and as a result was sentenced to 15 years. On top of his
The Weems's case became extremely important precedent because it is the first instance when the 8th amendment’s applicability was challenged at a legal level. Justice Marshall in his opinion also discusses the case Trop v Dulles, where Trop lost his United States citizenship as a result of his military desertion. The courts also ruled this punishment as “ cruel and unusual,” because they believed depriving someone of their citizenship violated the 8th amendment. Justice Marshall includes this case because of its full on cruelty towards the individual. This is done to illustrate the evolution of the legal system when it considers the “ cruel and unusual,” clause of the 8th amendment. The precedents set by both the Weems case and the Trop case become extremely important since these start creating a standard to which the 8th amendment has to adhere to. As a result, its use starts becoming limited and the legal system starts questioning its effectiveness and
Therefore it achieves its purpose by controlling and regulating societies’ behavior through effective and rationale punishment. If the government sets out a policy like the death penalty its use must be justified not only legally, but also socially, politically, and in execution. Instances, where these doctrines are misused and misinterpreted by the officials in charge of implementing them, brings into question its overall legitimacy. Justice Marshall states there are “ six purposes conceivably served by capital punishment: retribution, deterrence, prevention of repetitive criminal acts, encouragement of guilty pleas and confessions, eugenics, and economy,” ( 63). These purposes provide an idea to justify the use of capital punishment. Yet, if the use of the penalty does not help with the with controlling crime, specifically with the uses of the ideas provided by Justice Marshall, then its overall use should be questioned. The blatant racial bias found towards African-Americans in death penalty sentencing puts into question the legitimacy of the legal system and more specifically the effectiveness of the death penalty. Thus, if the policy discriminately targets specific races, minorities, and ethnicities it is evident this policy must be examined and questioned. Moreover, as Justice Marshall states “