Cruel and Unusual Punishment Gigi Ford, Abby Blankenship, Lucie Falcasantos 1st Period

What is cruel and unusual punishment? Governmental penalties against a convicted criminal defendant. Belongs in the eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing cruel and unusual punishment for federal crimes. Everyone agrees that its wording stems from an identical place in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. There is no similar agreement on the nature, or the significance behind its insertion in the Bill of Rights.

METHODS OF PUNISHMENT USAGE SINCE 1976 Electrocution chair Gas chamber Firing squad Hanging Lethal injection (default usage unless another method is chosen by convicted criminal) USAGE SINCE 1976 Electrocution chair: 158 Gas chamber: 11 Firing squad: 3 Hanging: 3 Lethal injection: 1,190

What are the punishments for the criminals?

History of cruel and unusual punishment Started in 1689 in England In 1776, George Mason took it from England and included a portion of England’s work and made it his own. In 1791 ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ was born in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Francis v. Resweber (1947) Willie Francis argued claimed that the failure of the electric chair to successfully execute him was in violation of the 8th Amendment. He tried to prevent a second execution attempt within the time it took to repair the chair. However, he was not successful. The failure of equipment does not refer to due process, and the 8th Amendment refers to cruelty of the method used to execute someone, not the suffering that may occur during the process. In this particular case, no unnecessary pain was intentionally inflicted upon Willie Francis.

Robinson vs. California (1962) Vote- 6-2 Where? Los Angeles California An officer testified that he observed "scar tissue and discoloration on the inside" of the appellant's right arm, needle mark, and a scab which was about three inches below the elbow" on his left arm. The officer also said that the appellant under admitted to occasionally using narcotics. The appellant then testified that the officer was basically lying, because he said that the marks were from when he was in the military. Robinson was convicted for at least 90 days in jail. The Supreme Court ruled that imprisoning someone with an “illness”of narcotic addiction was cruel and unusual punishment. They could not punish him because of addiction, since there was no proof of possession or selling.

Estelle v. Gamble (1976) WHAT? Court ruled violation of 8th Amendment (Vote: 7-2) HOW? This case was cruel to Gamble because he was experiencing much pain and the guards were not willing to help him. SIGNIFICANCE? This case ties into our topic by a prisoner being mistreated by officers at the prison and not getting the help he deserved WHERE? Texas department of corrections

Ingraham vs. Wright (1977) Where? Dade County in Florida Ingraham complained that his paddling in school was violating the 8th Amendment, because of its severity. Corporal punishment was a means of promoting discipline in the Dade County school system, to local School board regulation. Authorized punishment was paddling on the bottom,with a flat wooden paddle, and was limited to one to five “licks.” It was viewed as less drastic than suspension or expulsion. Ingraham was paddled more than 20 “licks” for responding too slowly to his teacher’s instructions. He suffered a hematoma, required medical condition, and was kept out of school for days. He was also struck on his arms on another account.

There was no proof of his testimony. The case reached the Supreme Court through federal court The Supreme Court ruled 5-4, that corporal punishment in public schools did not violate constitutional rights. They said that the use of corporal punishment has been a means of disciplining school children since the colonial period, and has been an accepted method. They believed that it was also successful in the long run. The concurring opinion was that excessive punishment could not result in liability of the teacher. The dissenting opinion was that if some types of extreme corporal punishment did prove unconstitutional, then similar punishment couldn’t be put on students for smaller errors.

Immigration v. Delgado (1983) Petitioner: Immigration and Naturalization Service Respondent: Delgado WHEN? January 11, 1984 - April 17, 1984 What was the vote? 7-2 WHAT? Delgado felt that his right to the Fourth Amendment was invaded. INS searched the factory Delgado worked at on lawfully-obtained warrants, and Delgado felt it violated his Fourth Amendment rights and requested declaratory relief

Hudson v. McMillian (1992) Keith Hudson, a Louisiana inmate, claimed that the beating that he received from two prison guards, Marun Woods and Jack McMillian, violated the 8th Amendment. The case went to the District Court and was ruled to be in violation of the 8th Amendment. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this ruling by a 7-2 decision. Hudson claimed that one morning, after McMillian and Hudson argued, he was escorted to the prison’s lockdown after he was placed in handcuffs and shackles. On the way there, he was punched by McMillian while Woods held him.

Hudson v. McMillian (1992) Hudson sued the three corrections officers in Federal District Court for violation of the 8th Amendment and seeked compensatory damages. A Magistrate discovered that Woods and McMillian used an unnecessarily excessive amount of force on Hudson and that Mezo condoned their actions. On account of this discovery that the corrections officers violated the 8th Amendment, Hudson was awarded $800 damages. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this verdict because of Hudson’s failure to prove significant injury to support his claim of the violation of the 8th Amendment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine if the requirement of significant injury by the Court of Appeals complies with the 8th Amendment that cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted.

Helling v. McKinney (1993) Vote ( 7-2 ) Where? Nevada William McKinney made a complaint that his health was being harmed by involuntarily being exposed to levels of ETS from his roommate in prison. This incidence is cruel because it poses a risk to McKinney’s future health by second hand smoking and the prison officials ignored the threat. The court ruled that he stated a reasonable claim and could be entitled to relief if he could prove the smoke levels were sufficient enough.

Hope v. Pelzer (2002) In 1995, Alabama inmate, Hope, was handcuffed to a pole on two different occasions as a form of punishment for poor conduct. In May of that year, he was handcuffed above shoulder height to a pole for two hours, with a bathroom break and water every fifteen minutes. His responses were recorded on a record log. A month later, in June, he had an altercation with a guard at a prison worksite. Following this incident, he transported back to the prison. Once he arrived there, he was once again handcuffed to a post. This time, he was ordered to remove his shirt before hand, and he was left on the post for a seven hour period. He received no bathroom breaks and only a handful of water breaks. The guards continuously taunted him about his thirst.

Hope v. Pelzer (2002) The guards were found to have granted immunity, and it was concluded that Hope could not sufficiently show that the federal law by which the conduct of the guards should be evaluated occurred in similar, previous cases.

Roper v. Simmons (2005) At the age of 17, Christopher Simmons and his two friends, Charles Benjamin, 15, and John Tessmer, 16, planned a murder. On the night of the murder, Tessmer bailed before any crime was committed. After Tessmer left, Simmons and Benjamin broke into the house of Shirley Crook. They proceeded to bind her, drive to a state park, and threw off a bridge crossing the Meramec River after reinforcing her bindings. Simmons bragged to his friends about the crime, and at around the same time, Steven Crook reported his wife to be missing. Her body was found later that day.

Roper v. Simmons (2005) After the police heard of Simmons’s involvement in the crime, he was arrested at his school, and he confessed to committing the murder. He was charged by the state with burglary, kidnapping, and murder in the first degree. Because he was 17 at the time of the murder, he was out of the jurisdiction of the juvenile court system and was therefore tried as an adult. The state sought the death penalty. As aggravating factors, the state submitted evidence that the crime was inhumane. Shirley Crook’s husband, daughter, and two sisters were called to present moving evidence of the devastation that her loss had caused.

Roper v. Simmons (2005) Simmons’s attorney testified that Simmons had no prior convictions or charges pressed against him. Both the defense and prosecuting counsels brought up Simmons’s age. After finding that the state had proved each of the three aggravating factors submitted to it, the jury recommended the death penalty. The trial judge then imposed the death penalty. Simmons filed a petition for postconviction release, arguing that it is established that no person under the age of 18 can be sentenced to death according to the reasonings of Atkins v. Virginia. The Missouri Supreme Court agreed, and Simmons was resentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for probation, parole, or release, unless by the act of the governor.

Roper v. Simmons

Evan Miller, Petitioner Vs. Alabama (2012) Evan Miller, a 14-year old in Alabama, had been in and out of foster care, because his mother was an alcoholic and drug abuser, on top of that, his stepfather abused him too. He had committed crimes prior to this one and attempted suicide. He killed Cole Cannon, by beating him and starting fires in his trailer, with Cannon inside. While this happened, he was high and drunk. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison without parole.

Miller argued that sentencing a 14-year old to life without parole was cruel and unusual punishment. The case reached Supreme court through federal courts. In a similar case, Kuntrell Jackson, of the same age and punishment, filed for the same thing in Arkansas. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the 8th Amendment forbids this sentence for juvenile homicide offenders. It would be inappropriate to not offer parole. The concurring opinion was that the offender actually intended to kill the victim, and without the proof, the state couldn’t issue a life sentence. The dissenting opinion was that many other young offenders had been imposed life sentences, which would prove that the punishment wasn’t cruel and unusual. The court stated that a state’s criminal laws didn’t have to guarantee eventual freedom, but offer opportunity for release of juvenile offenders.

Bibliography Cruel and Unusual Punishment Legal Definition of Cruel and ..." N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2016. Estelle vs. Gamble 429 US 97, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 - Supreme Court, 1976 - Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4755107314332030951&q=cruel+and+unusual+punishment&hl=en&as_sdt=3,43 Helling vs. Mckinney - "Helling v. McKinney." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Sep 25, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-1958> Miller vs. Alabama- "Miller v. Alabama." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Sep 25, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10- 9646> Ingraham vs. Wright- "Ingraham v. Wright." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Sep 25, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-6527> Robinson vs. California -"Robinson v. California." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Sep 26, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/554> 370 US 660, 82 S. Ct. 1417, 8 L. Ed. 2d 758 - Supreme Court, 1962 - Google Scholar

Bibliography Hudson v McMillian "Hudson v. McMillian." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Sep 26, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/90- 6531> Immigration v. Delgado "Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Sep 26, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-1271> Roper v. Simmons "Roper v. Simmons (No. 03-633)." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2016. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/03-633>. "Roper v. Simmons." Encyclopedia of Criminal Justice Ethics (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 24 Sept. 2016. <http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/youth_at_risk/ROPER-v-Simmons.authcheckdam.pdf>. Francis v. Resweber "Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Sep 26, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/329us459> Hope v. Pelzer "HOPE V. PELZER." HOPE V. PELZER. N.p., 17 Apr. 2002. Web. 26 Sept. 2016. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-309.ZS.html>.

Bibliography Cruel and Unusual Punishment." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2016. Linder, Douglas. "Cruel and Unusual Punishment under the Eighth Amendment." Cruel and Unusual Punishment under the Eighth Amendment. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2016. "Cruel and Unusual Punishment." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2016.