8. Amendment to the United States Constitution
The 8th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America ( Amendment VIII , in German called the eighth addition ) forbids excessive deposits, excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments. It is part of the US Bill of Rights with all amendments I. to X. , which were passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 and ratified on December 15, 1791. The wording was taken from the English Bill of Rights .
text
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
"There should be no excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments applied."
The 8th Amendment to the Constitution is listed as Article the tenth of the US Congress bill .
Excessive deposits
In England it was originally the sheriffs who decided whether to give bail. In order to expand one's own sphere of influence, the English Parliament passed a law in 1275, in which the crimes for which bail can be granted were specified. However, the law was often disregarded by the king's judges. It was recorded that an individual may be detained without bail on the orders of the king. In 1628 a legal petition was made to parliament that the king did not have this right. Formal matters were later interpreted in the law in such a way that the accused could also be detained in the event of a bail-off crime, although these loopholes were largely closed by the Habeas Corpus Act of 1677. The judges were then forced to place bail, but they often asked for unaffordable sums. Finally, it was stated in the UK Bill of Rights that “excessive bail ought not to be required”. The law did not remove the distinction between bail and non-bail crimes. Therefore, the eighth amendment has been interpreted to mean that deposits can be refused in cases with very serious allegations. The Supreme Court has also allowed preventive detention without bail . In the United States v. Salerno (1987) the Supreme Court stated: The only restriction the bail clause imposes is that "the government's proposed conditions of release are not excessive in the face of the crime committed" ("the government's proposed conditions of release or detention not be 'excessive' in light of the perceived evil ").
Excessive fines
Protection from excessive fines can only be applied to the government. Penalties that have to be paid as a result of civil court hearings are not affected by the clause, as the Supreme Court in the Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, Inc. (1989). The Supreme Court held that the prosperity of the accused need not be factored into the magnitude of the sentence.
The United States Supreme Court has never set a maximum amount for fines.
Cruel and unusual punishments
The eighth amendment to the constitution completely prohibits some punishments and prohibits punishments if they are excessive compared to the crime committed.
In the Furman v. Georgia (1972) wrote Richter Brennan: "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is." 'cruel and unusual'. ")
- "The most important quality is that a punishment does not affect human dignity by its severity alone, which is particularly true of torture ."
- ("The essential predicate is that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity ", especially torture. ")
- "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in an act of arbitrariness."
- ("A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion".)
- "A severe punishment that is obviously and completely rejected by the whole of society."
- ("A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society".)
- "A severe punishment that is obviously unnecessary."
- ("A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary".)
He went on to write that he expects no state to pass a law that appears to be in violation of these principles, so court decisions relating to the 8th Amendment will each time have an analysis that reflects the state of the discussion on the implications of each of these would include four principles.
Completely Prohibited Punitive Measures
In the Wilkerson v. Utah (1878) the Supreme Court commented in an obiter dictum that quartering , public dissection , cremation of the living and evisceration are cruel and unusual and therefore forbidden punishments. The execution by firing squad , which was the real issue in this case, was decided as permissible.
Even torture is forbidden by the eighth Amendment.
In the Trop v. Dulles (1958) found that the expatriation of a United States-born American citizen was unconstitutional because it was excessive. This is the case because it is “more primitive than torture ” and it would entail “the complete destruction of the condition of an individual in an organized society ”.
Prohibited, if inappropriate, punitive measures
In the Weems v. United States (1910) stated that punishment is cruel and unusual if not appropriate. The Weems case dealt with a verdict that condemned "hard and painful work", shackles for imprisonment and permanent civilian disadvantage.
In the case of Robinson v. California (1962), the court ruled 8-0 that a California law allowing 90-day imprisonment for narcotic dependence clearly violated the 8th Amendment because drug dependence "appears to be a disease." and California is trying to punish people for their illness rather than for doing something.
In the case of Coker v. Georgia (1977) the court ruled that the death penalty for raping an adult woman is unconstitutional because it is excessive. This applies in turn to any other act other than murder.
Traditionally, length of prison sentence has not been the subject of investigation under the rules of the 8th Amendment, including in relation to the crime committed. This tradition continued until the fall of Solem v. Helm (1983) retained when the Supreme Court ruled that incarceration can be a cruel and unusual punishment if the punishment is disproportionate in duration in the face of the crime committed. The court formulated three factors that should be taken into account in order to determine the appropriateness of the sentence:
- (i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty,
- (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction,
- (iii) the penalty imposed for committing the same crime in other jurisdictions. (the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.)
The court held that given the circumstances of the present case and other factors to consider, a life imprisonment with no parole as a penalty for cashing a $ 100 check on a closed bank account is a cruel and unusual punishment. (English: The Court held that under the circumstances of the case before it and the factors to be considered, a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for cashing a $ 100 check on a closed account was cruel and unusual punishment.)
death penalty
Apart from the period between 1967 and 1976, when the death penalty was practically suspended, it has been the consistent case law of the court that death penalties do not violate the 8th Amendment, but that many uses of the death penalty violate the 8th Amendment.
In the case of Coker v. Georgia (1977) ruled that the death penalty for raping an adult woman is cruel and unusual, and therefore unconstitutional. As in the case of Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008), this also applies to child rape.
In 2002 the court declared the execution of a mentally retarded person unconstitutional. In 2005, the execution of minors (under 18 years of age) at the time of their crime was found to be unconstitutional.
The constitutionality of the death penalty is often challenged, usually on the basis of violations of the 8th Amendment. The first challenge to reach the Supreme Court was the Furman v. Georgia (1972). In this case, the death penalty for Furman and two other Georgia and Texas defendants was overturned in a 5-4 decision. Of the five judges who voted for the death penalty to be waived, two found the death penalty cruel and unusual, and three found the death penalty a random and unpredictable punishment that disadvantaged blacks and the poor. The three judges said that this would make the death penalty cruel and unusual.
States that sentenced to death sentences rewrote their legislation on these points as soon as possible as a result of the verdict and in the Gregg v. Georgia (1976) the Supreme Court found Georgia's new death penalty laws in a 7-2 vote under the rules of the 8th Amendment to be valid because guilt and sentence were determined separately in a two-part process.
In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled the Atkins v. Virginia with reference to the Eighth Amendment that the death penalty cannot be pronounced against the mentally handicapped.
In April 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in the Baze v. Rees on the permissibility of the execution by lethal injection and declared this type of execution to be constitutional with 7-2 judge votes.
