8th Amendment Essay
The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has generated a considerable amount of debate and controversy surrounding the question: what is considered “cruel and unusual punishment.” The important issue that develops from this amendment is whether or not the death penalty is constitutional. Over the decades, the Supreme Court fails to completely confront the issue by refusing to address any issue that falls outside of the case in question. As a result, today’s court is left with many specific instances where the death penalty is acceptable or unconstitutional, but not an overall principle that the death penalty is consistent or inconsistent with the Constitution. In Roper v. Simmons, seventeen year-old Christopher Simmons is tried as an adult
…show more content…
The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution reads: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Since the wording in this amendment is general in regards to what is cruel and unusual punishment, the Court was left to decide whether they would adopt a strict constitutional perspective consistent with the framer’s definitions of “cruel and unusual,” or use a living constitutionalist approach, meaning the definitions of “cruel and unusual” would evolve alongside society’s definition of the words. According to the casebook, “cruel and unusual” was “derived from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, originally understood to refer to such ancient practices as branding, drawing and quartering, burning alive, and crucifixion.” After understanding the framer’s definitions, the Court decided in Trop v. Dulles that the Eighth Amendment should derive its meaning from the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” This decision carries through to the precedents that follow, especially in the death penalty cases. The Court must then choose a criteria or way of determining the “evolving standards” without overstepping their judicial power. As seen in Roper v. Simmons, the Court uses state laws and international agreements to support their notion of society’s evolving definition of what is “cruel and unusual
The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution reads: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Since the wording in this amendment is general in regards to what is cruel and unusual punishment, the Court was left to decide whether they would adopt a strict constitutional perspective consistent with the framer’s definitions of “cruel and unusual,” or use a living constitutionalist approach, meaning the definitions of “cruel and unusual” would evolve alongside society’s definition of the words. According to the casebook, “cruel and unusual” was “derived from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, originally understood to refer to such ancient practices as branding, drawing and quartering, burning alive, and crucifixion.” After understanding the framer’s definitions, the Court decided in Trop v. Dulles that the Eighth Amendment should derive its meaning from the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” This decision carries through to the precedents that follow, especially in the death penalty cases. The Court must then choose a criteria or way of determining the “evolving standards” without overstepping their judicial power. As seen in Roper v. Simmons, the Court uses state laws and international agreements to support their notion of society’s evolving definition of what is “cruel and unusual