Digital Commons Network^™

The Punishment Need Not Fit The Crime: Harmelin V. Michigan And The Eigth Amendment, Scott K. Petersen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Greater And Lesser Powers, Samuel Levin

Samuel Levin

During much of the twentieth century it was relatively stylish for lawyers, judges and justices to argue that an exercise of power was permissible because "the greater power [to do something else] necessarily includes the lesser power [to do this]." Unfortunately, sloppy and unprincipled uses that merely reflected the intuitions of those who invoked it has largely discredited the argument, although it still makes some relevant appearances.

This paper argues that there is a principled way to apply the argument: by looking to the relative harms caused by each exercise of power. However, any notion of "necessarily includes" needs to …

The Mandatory Meaning Of Miller, William W. Berry Iii

William W Berry III

In June 2012, the United States Supreme Court held in Miller v. Alabama that the imposition of mandatory life-without-parole sentences on juveniles violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual” punishment. This case continued the Supreme Court’s slow but steady expansion of the scope of the Eighth Amendment over the past decade. In light of the Court’s decision in Miller to preclude mandatory sentences of life without parole for juveniles, this article explores the possibility of further expansion of the Eighth Amendment to proscribe other kinds of mandatory sentences. Applying the approach of the Court in Miller to other …

Execution By Accident: Evidentiary And Constitutional Problems With The "Childhood Onset" Requirement In Atkins Claims, Steven Mulroy

Steven Mulroy

The article discusses claims by capital defendants asserting that they are mentally retarded (MR) and thus cannot be executed under the 2002 Supreme Court holding in Atkins v. Virginia. Courts hearing such claims require proof that any intellectual deficits first occurred during childhood. This “childhood onset” prong is problematic for practical and theoretical reasons. As a practical matter, courts often improperly: (a) expect (rarely available) IQ test results dating from childhood; (b) dismiss MR proof if the defendant has minimal day-to-day competence, despite the medical consensus that MR persons can drive, cook, etc.; and (c) reject Atkins claims because the …

Harmelin's Faulty Originalism, Michael J.Z. Mannheimer

Michael J.Z. Mannheimer

In Harmelin v. Michigan, in 1991, Justice Scalia, writing only for himself and Chief Justice Rehnquist, set forth the claim that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, as understood in 1791, did not require proportionality in sentencing. Instead, he argued, it was understood at that time as addressing only certain methods of punishment. Twenty-one years later, the plurality opinion in Harmelin remains the foundation for conservative originalist arguments against the notion that the Clause forbids disproportionate punishment. It has continued to be cited by its adherents, Justices Scalia and Thomas, as recently as the last week of the October 2011 …

The Real Lethal Punishment: The Inadequacy Of Prison Healthcare And How It Can Be Fixed, G. Nicholas Wallace

G. Nicholas Wallace

There are over 2 million prisoners in the United States and all of them have a fundamental right to healthcare, which, currently, is the only population group to enjoy such a right. This paper focuses on the quality of healthcare that is to be provided to prisoners and some of the reasons why the healthcare that is currently being provided is inadequate. Part II looks at the issue through an ethical lens. It summarizes Kantian ethics and how that theory shapes this issue. Part III will focus on exactly what quality of healthcare prisoners are entitled to and what their …

Punishment Without Culpability, John F. Stinneford

UF Law Faculty Publications

For more than half a century, academic commentators have criticized the Supreme Court for failing to articulate a substantive constitutional conception of criminal law. Although the Court enforces various procedural protections that the Constitution provides for criminal defendants, it has left the question of what a crime is purely to the discretion of the legislature. This failure has permitted legislatures to evade the Constitution’s procedural protections by reclassifying crimes as civil causes of action, eliminating key elements (such as mens rea) or reclassifying them as defenses or sentencing factors, and authorizing severe punishments for crimes traditionally considered relatively minor.

The …

Unlocking The Eighth Amendment’S Power To Make Innocence A Constitutional Claim, David Niven

david niven

The U.S. Supreme Court has articulated no definitive constitutional bar to executing the innocent. While the text of the Constitution may not directly speak to the question, the court has elsewhere held, repeatedly and unanimously, that the operative meaning of the Eighth Amendment is shaped by decisions of state legislators. That is, if state legislators deem something cruel and unusual (executing minors, for example) it has therefore been rejected by society and is constitutionally barred. If legislators deem a particular practice acceptable, it is acceptable to society and thus permitted by the Constitution. Despite their significance in death penalty jurisprudence …

Casting A Wider Net: Another Decade Of Legislative Expansion Of The Death Penalty In The United States, Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier

Pepperdine Law Review

During the last decade, judges, politicians, scholars, and the general public have become troubled about problems with the death penalty in the United States. Also during this time, major studies of the death penalty have recommended a reduction in the number of statutory factors that make one eligible for the death penalty. Despite these concerns, legislatures continue to expand their capital punishment statutes to make more defendants eligible for the death penalty. This Article examines how, during a time of growing concern about innocence and arbitrariness in the death penalty system, a number of legislatures have continued to expand their …

Cruel And Unusual Federal Punishments, Michael Mannheimer

Michael J.Z. Mannheimer

Virtually all federal defendants who have challenged their sentences as “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment have failed. This is because the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on cruel and unusual carceral punishments is extraordinarily deferential to legislative judgments about how harsh prison sentences ought to be for particular crimes. This deferential approach stems largely from concerns of federalism, for all of the Court’s modern cases on the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause have addressed state, not federal, sentencing practices. Thus, they have addressed the Eighth Amendment only as incorporated by the Fourteenth. Federal courts accordingly find themselves …

Cruel And Unusual Federal Punishments, Michael J.Z. Mannheimer

Michael J.Z. Mannheimer

Virtually all federal defendants who have challenged their sentences as “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment have failed. This is because the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on cruel and unusual carceral punishments is extraordinarily deferential to legislative judgments about how harsh prison sentences ought to be for particular crimes. This deferential approach stems largely from concerns of federalism, for all of the Court’s modern cases on the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause have addressed state, not federal, sentencing practices. Thus, they have addressed the Eighth Amendment only as incorporated by the Fourteenth. Federal courts accordingly find themselves …

The Mentally Disordered Criminal Defendant At The Supreme Court: A Decade In Review, Dora W. Klein

Faculty Articles

In the past decade, at least eight cases involving issues at the intersection of criminal law and clinical psychology have reached the United States Supreme Court. Of particular interest are those cases which concern three general topics: the culpability of juvenile offenders; mental states and the criminal process, including the presentation of mental disorder evidence, competency to stand trial, and competency to be executed; and the preventive detention of convicted sex offenders.

Of these eight cases, two cases cases adopted categorical exclusions from certain kinds of punishment, three involved questions about mental states (and in two of these the Court …

A Crisis In Federal Habeas Law, Eve Brensike Primus

Reviews

Everyone recognizes that federal habeas doctrine is a mess. Despite repeated calls for reform, federal judges continue to waste countless hours reviewing habeas petitions only to dismiss the vast majority of them on procedural grounds. Broad change is necessary, but to be effective, such change must be animated by an overarching theory that explains when federal courts should exercise habeas jurisdiction. In Habeas for the Twenty-First Century: Uses, Abuses, and the Future of the Great Writ, Professors Nancy King and Joseph Hoffmann offer such a theory. Drawing on history, current practice, and empirical data, King and Hoffmann find unifying themes …

A Modest Proposal: The Aged Of Death Row Should Be Deemed Too Old To Execute, Elizabeth Rapaport

Faculty Scholarship

My exploration of the case for an Eighth Amendment bar against executing the long-serving elderly will begin with a review of the representation of the elderly on Americas death rows and a survey of the very limited avenues of relief currently available to them on the basis of age. I will then discuss the attribution problem by asking at whose door should 'fault' for long delays between condemnation and consummation of a capital sentence be laid--the prisoner, the state, or the working through of due process? For many jurists, attribution of fault is critical to resolving the question of whether …

The Missing Jury: The Neglected Role Of Juries In Eighth Amendment Punishments Clause Determinations, Meghan J. Ryan

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

A recent study of death penalty cases has revealed that judges, who are ordinarily thought of as the guardians of criminal defendants’ constitutional rights, are more likely to impose harsher punishments than jurors. This may be unsettling in its own right, but it is especially concerning because judges are the individuals charged with determining whether punishments are unconstitutionally cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment, and these determinations are supposed to be based on “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” The study suggests that judges are out of step with society’s moral norms, …

New Paths For The Court: Protections Afforded Juveniles Under Miranda; Effective Assistance Of Counsel; And Habeas Corpus Decisions Of The Supreme Court’S 2010/2011 Term, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Repudiating The Narrowing Rule In Capital Sentencing, Scott W. Howe

Scott W. Howe

This Article proposes a modest reform of Eighth Amendment law governing capital sentencing to spur major reform in the understanding of the function of the doctrine. The article urges that the Supreme Court should renounce a largely empty mandate known as the “narrowing” rule and the rhetoric of equality that has accompanied it. By doing so, the Court could speak more truthfully about the important but more limited function that its capital-sentencing doctrine actually pursues, which is to ensure that no person receives the death penalty who does not deserve it. The Court could also speak more candidly than it …