The Eighth Amendment interpretation has changed over time because of a criminal’s mental health, non-homicidal crimes, and the execution of minors. To emphasize, Justice John Paul Stevens proclaimed that “in a 6 - 3 opinion, the Court held that executions of mentally retarded criminals are ‘cruel and unusual punishments’ prohibited by the Eighth Amendment” (Atkins v. Virginia.). As a result, the United States of America doesn’t execute mentally ill criminals, anymore, because people found out that there is something wrong with their brain and that they do not have a self conscious. Furthermore, majority of the Supreme Court agreed with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy [in a 6 - 3 decision] and concluded that “the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual …show more content…
Punishments Clause does not permit a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison without parole for a non-homicidal crime” (Graham v. Florida). For this reason, rape crimes shall not be executed or be sentenced to life in prison without parole, including burglary or robbery, because criminals that didn’t take a person’s life should not be punished heavily. Another key point, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy declared that “the Court ruled that standards of decency have evolved so that executing minors is ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ prohibited by the Eighth Amendment” (Roper v. Simmons.). Therefore, anybody who is eighteen years younger shall not be executed because it is “overwhelming” to take the life of a very young criminal. Over time, the Eighth Amendment has been applied or interpreted differently because some criminals are mentally ill, some crimes are non-homicidal, and some criminals are too young to be executed. Capital punishment has continued to be controversial because it is a punishment for people who takes someone’s life. Values and important principles that are at conflict, with this punishment, is like never taking someone’s life and forgiving one’s action. In Furman v. Georgia, the case informed that Furman “was convicted of murder and sentenced to death (Two other death penalty cases were decided along with Furman: Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas. These cases concern the constitutionality of the death sentence for rape and murder convictions, respectively)” (Furman v. Georgia.). To explain, Furman was convicted for murder, which is when a human another human, and was sentenced to death because he took someone’s life, so the government will take his life. like an eye for an eye. In the Bible, it described that “[one] shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment” (44 Bible Verses about Murder.). People who are christian would have a religious value about not murdering others and capital punishment is like murdering the murderer. The definition of forgiving is “to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, debt, etc.); absolve.” (forgive). Forgiving someone who murdered someone else has a lot of conflicts because the capital punishment is suppose to punish crimes but values like this stops this from happening. Capital punishment has continued to be controversial because murderers should be punished for taking someone else's life. Values and important principles that are at conflict are like never taking another human’s life and forgiving a murder who took a human’s life. Individual states should have the power to decide whether or not to practice the death penalty because it is the people’s choice, different religious values, and the government should not execute us.
In the constitution, the preamble states that “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” (Preamble.). The reason why I chose this evidence is because the beginning always says “we the people” not “we the government”, and the founding fathers made the constitution for the United States and its people. The Bible warned that “[one] shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment” (44 Bible Verses about Murder.). Christianity is just one of the religions in the United States of America and each one of those religions have different values that conflict with the death penalty, which can be a factor on why some states stop practicing it. Bruce Fein announced that “abolitionists may contend that the death penalty is inherently immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter what the provocation” (Top 10 Pros and Cons Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed?). The government should never decide whether we die or not because, first of all, a jury should decide whether to
sentence a person to death or not and giving one person or group to have that kind of power is not very bright. Individual states should have the power to decide whether or not to practice the death penalty because the people should decide, there are many religious beliefs, and the government should not have the power to sentence us to death.
Sixteenth Amendment- Authorization of an Income Tax – Progressives thought this would slow down the rising wealth of the richest Americans by using a sliding or progressive scale where the wealthier would pay more into the system. In 1907, Roosevelt supported the tax but it took two years until his Successor, Taft endorsed the constitutional amendment for the tax. The Sixteenth Amendment was finally ratified by the states in 1913. The origin of the income tax came William J Bryan in 1894 to help redistribute wealth and then from Roosevelt and his dedication to reform of corporations. I agree with an income tax to pay for all of our government systems and departments, but I believe there was a misfire with “redistributing wealth.” The redistribution is seen in welfare systems whereby individuals receive money to live. This is meant to be a temporary assistance, but sadly, most that are in the system are stuck due to lack of assistance in learning how to escape poverty. There are a lot of government funded programs, but there is no general help system to help lift people up and stay up, so there continues a cycle of
The Supreme Court has found many acts of punishment unconstitutional, such as torture, and inhumane executions. Ludovico treatment does not harm a person, instead what it does is reform that person so they can conform to societal behavioral standards. An example of a Supreme Court case that dealt with the Eighth Amendment was Hudson vs McMillan in 1992. In this case the Court considered whether the beating of inmates violated the inmate’s Eight Amendment rights. In a 7 to 2 vote the Supreme Court found that prison guards exerting excessive force maliciously to induce harm on inmates violated his eighth amendment rights even if there were no permanent injuries of hospitalization ( Taxin, 1052). In this case the Supreme Court ruled that beating prisoners was unconstitutional because it was viewed as cruel and sadistic. Ludovico treatment does not seek to harm criminals, instead it seeks to reform criminals so they won’t be a danger to society. For this reason the Supreme Court would not rule Ludovico unconstitutional. Another example of a Supreme Court case dealing with the eighth amendment was the Supreme Court case Roper v Simmons in 2005 ( DeNunzio, 369). In this case, the Court considered whether it was merciless and bizarre to execute a convicted felon for a criminal offense committed as a minor. The Supreme Court ruled against the execution in 5-4 decision. They rationalized that it was wrong to execute someone for a crime they committed when they were minor because the mind of a minor had not yet completely and fully developed. This is another case in which the Supreme Court found that the penalization of someone was inhumane and unjust. Ludovico treatment wouldn’t come under such scrutiny, as long as the treatment is prescribed as a treatment to people that are
I agree with the statement, “The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, limiting the American president to elected terms in office, has been successful and should be retained. This amendment has facilitated rotation in office and new ideas, both crucial to an effective democracy.”. The statement is an agreeable because it does not deprive citizens of their right to elect, it opens the candidate pool, problems have not arisen, and stops the country from being a monarchy. The 22nd Amendment limits the American president to two terms, totaling to eight years in office. The restrictions made by the 22nd Amendment have not proven to be a problem.
The United State of America, established by the Founding Father who lead the American Revolution, accomplished many hardship in order to construct what America is today. As history established America’s future, the suffering the United State encountered through history illustrate America’s ability to identify mistakes and make changes to prevent the predictable. The 2nd Amendment was written by the Founding Father who had their rights to bear arms revoked when they believe rising up to their government was appropriate. The Twentieth Century, American’s are divided on the 2nd Amendment rights, “The right to bear arms.” To understand why the Founding Father written this Amendment, investigating the histories and current measures may help the American people gain a better understanding of gun’s rights in today’s America.
... So instead of the Eighth Amendment being “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.” (Legal Dictionary), it should be “Excessive bail or fines should not be imposed unless it fits the crime committed, cruel and unusual punishment should also not be imposed unless the need was to arise where the crime was extreme enough for all the jury members to agree on a cruel or unusual punishment.”. Works Cited Legal Dictionary. Farlax.
The right to have trial by jury is an easy and simple right letting someone to be able to choose to have their fate be decide by a group of people with having different opinions from different minds letting them have a better chance of finding out the truth, because people have different perspectives in what they see. Which is also a very important right to the freedom we have and to our country. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Which defines as if someone gets charged over twenty dollars, then they’re able to ask for a jury to hear their side of the case before they lose their money and once the jury makes their decision they can not change it. This Amendment is important to our freedom because into the decision of the Farmers while they were writing on the Bill of Rights they thought it would only be fair to have an equal court system.
I think that executing a minor violates the 8th amendment, “No cruel or unusual punishment.” If a little kid makes a mistake and accidentally shoots a gun or does something that kills someone, and they are executed I think that that falls under cruel and unusual punishment.
According to the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Though last in the Bill of Rights, it is one of the most powerful and ever changing in interpretation over the course of America’s history. Some historical events that altered its meaning include the Civil War, The Civil Right’s Movement, and even modern event’s like the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. In this paper I will discuss how the Tenth amendment has a large effect in both America’s history, but also how it is now portrayed America’s present.
The sixth amendment is indeed a right that carries tremendous importance with its name. It constitutes for many protections which Mallicoat (2016) summarizes by saying it “provides for the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of one’s peers in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. Provides the right to be informed of the nature of the charges, to confront witnesses against oneself, and present witnesses in one’s defense. Provides the right to an attorney.” Having an impartial jury of one’s peers is extremely important in efforts to eliminate bias and a subjective, limited range of mindsets. If this cannot be obtained in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed, one may request trial to be held elsewhere, such as in the case
Tenth Amendment Our bill of rights all began when James Madison, the primary author of the constitution, proposed 20 amendments to the bill of rights and not the ten we know of today. Madison sent these twenty proposed rights through the House and the Senate and was left with twelve bills of rights. Madison himself took some of it out. These amendments were then sent to the states to be ratified. Virginia was the tenth state out of the fourteenth states to approve 10 out of 12 amendments.
The “cruel and unusual” clause in the eighth amendment states that “cruel and unusual punishment” such as torture or lingering death can not be inflicted on anyone as a form of execution. It is however permissible under the 8th Amendment to execute a convict by means of hanging, shooting, electrocution, and lethal gas.
... rape or treason was committed ("8th Amendment to the Constitution – U.S. Amendment VIII Summary"). However, there are some cases where the death penalty is unacceptable regardless of the crime. In the Supreme Court case of Roper v Simmons the court decided that the execution of someone for a crime they committed when they were a minor violated the eighth amendment . The court case of Atkins v Virginia established that the death penalty is not an acceptable punishment for mentally ill felons (Lemieux, "The Supreme Court's Empty Eighth Amendment Promise"). The Supreme Court has also ruled that executing anyone under the age of 18 is an act of cruel and unusual punishment ("8th Amendment to the Constitution – U.S. Amendment VIII Summary"). The death penalty is the worst punishment a person could get, and because of that there are many restrictions on when to use it.
Many call capital punishment unconstitutional and point to the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution for support. The amendment states that, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment be inflicted." Those who oppose the death penalty target the 'cruel and unusual' phrase as an explanation of why it is unconstitutional. Since the Framers of the Constitution are no longer with us and we base our nation on the words in which that document contains, the legality of the death penalty is subject to interpretation. Since there is some ambiguity or lack of preciseness in the Constitution, heated debate surrounding this issue has risen in the last ten years.
The issue of executing mentally ill criminals has been widely debated among the public. They debate on whether it is right or wrong to execute a person who does not possess the capacity to think correctly. The mental illness is a disease that destroys a person’s memory, emotion, and prevent one or more function of the mind running properly. The disease affects the way a person thinks, feels, behaves and relates to others.When a person is severely mentally ill, his/ her ability to appreciate reality lack so they aspire to do stuff that is meaningless. The sickness is triggered by an amalgamation of genetic, and environmental factors not a personal imperfection. On the death penalty website, Scott Panetti who killed his mother in-law and father-in-law reports that since 1983, over 60 people with mental illness or retardation have been executed in the United States (Panetti). The American Civil Liberties Union says that it is unconstitutional to execute someone who suffered from an earnest mental illness (ACLU).Some people apply the term crazy or mad to describe a person who suffers from astringent psychological disorders because a mad person look different than a mundane human being. The time has come for us to accept the fact that executing mentally ill offenders is not beneficial to society for many reasons. Although some mentally ill criminals have violated the law, we need to sustain a federal law that mentally ill criminals should not be put to death.
Capital punishment goes against almost every religion. Isolated passages of religious scripture have been quoted in support of the death penalty, almost all religious groups in the United States regard executions as immoral. There is no credible evidence that capital punishment deters crime from the streets in America. Scientific studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that executions deter people from committing crime anymore than long prison sentences. Moreover, states without the death penalty have much lower murder rates. Executions are carried out at staggering cost to taxpayer.The funds spent for execution should be used to target the issue of killing and find solutions to help communities unite to demonstrate a more peaceful environment. Recent CNN reported how studies done have found that the death penalty criminal litigation, costs taxpayers far more than seeking life without parole. (CNN, 2015) The states spends millions of dollars to put away death row inmates when the funds could be used to help channel society in tune with how to become more positive and getting help to those who need