Chapter 12 - The Eighth Amendment: Bail, Fines, and Punishment

© 2015 Cengage Learning

Prepared by Tony Wolusky, J.D. , Metropolitan State University of Denver

Chapter 12The Eighth

Amendment: Bail, Fines, and

Punishment


The 8th Amendment protects three rights:o That excessive bail shall not be required.o That excessive fines shall not be imposed.o That cruel and unusual punishment shall not

be inflicted.

This Amendment has a lot of controversy because of interpretations about whether the death penalty is cruel and unusual.


Money or property pledged by a defendant for pretrial release from custody that would be forfeited should the defendant fail to appear at subsequent court proceedings.

Bail serves two purposes:1. Helps to assure the appearance of the accused at court

proceedings.2. It maintains the presumption of innocence by allowing

individuals not yet convicted of a crime to avoid continued incarceration.

Also allows individuals to:o Prepare a defense.o To continue earning income if employed.


Bail itself is not guaranteed under the 8th Amendment.o Only excessive bail is prohibited, which is not clearly

defined.o Bail may be denied in capital cases and when the

accused has threatened possible trial witnesses.o The excessive bail prohibition has never been

formally incorporated to apply to the states under the 14th Amendment, allowing states to deal with it through their constitutions, legislation and case law.


Granted judicial authority to include specific conditions of release for the community's safety.

Allows judges to consider the potential criminal conduct of those accused of serious offenses and deny bail on those grounds.


Jackson v. Indiana (1972)o Government may detain dangerous

defendants who may be incompetent to stand trial.

Addington v. Texas (1979)o Government may detain mentally unstable

individuals who present a public danger. United States v. Salerno (1987)

o Pretrial detention under this act did not violate the 8th Amendment .


Stack v. Boyle , 342 U.S. 1 (1951)

Facts: Members of the Communist Party were charged with conspiring to teach overthrowing the government, and were unsuccessful in a motion to reduce $50,000 bail.

Issues: Was the bail excessive under the 8th Amendment?

Holding: Yes. Rationale: Bail set at a figure higher than an

amount reasonably calculated to fulfill its purpose is excessive under the 8th Amendment.


The prohibition against excessive fines has not been incorporated, so it does not apply to the states.

Excessive fine prohibition does not apply in the civil area.o Because civil cases are between

private parties and the Constitution regulates the government.


Asset Forfeitureo The seizure by the government, without compensation,

of money and property connected with illegal activity. Property connected with illegal activity may be

forfeited when used as a conveyance to transport illicit drugs.

Real estate used in association with a crime and money or other negotiable instruments obtained through criminal activity also can be seized and is considered a civil sanction by the government.


Facts: Austin pled guilty to one count of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. Agents seized his mobile home and auto body shop.

Issues: Was the forfeiture excessive? Holding: Yes. Rationale: The Supreme Court ruled that the 8th

Amendment prohibition against excessive fines applies to civil forfeiture proceedings against property connected to drug trafficking. The amount seized must bear some relation to the value of the illegal enterprise under the 8th Amendment.


The final clause of the 8th Amendment .

What is “cruel and unusual?”o Depends on what society believes it to

be.


Facts: While serving several sentences for rape, defendant escaped prison and raped another victim. He was sentenced to death after capture and trial.

Issues: Is the death sentence disproportionate to crime under 8th Amendment?

Holding: Yes. Rationale: Punishment is excessive and

unconstitutional if it makes no measureable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment and hence is nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering. Also, if it is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime as for a crime without homicide getting a death sentence.


The courts have used three inquiries in assessing constitutionality of cruel and unusual punishment:1. Whether the punishment shocks the general conscience of a

civilized society.2. Whether the punishment is unnecessarily cruel.3. Whether the punishment goes beyond legitimate penal aims.

The Supreme Court has established three criteria for proportionality analysis (making the punishment fit the crime):1. The gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty.2. The sentences imposed on other criminals in the same

jurisdiction.3. The sentences imposed for the commission of the same

crime in other jurisdictions.


Facts: Defendant given a sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment for felony theft under “three strikes” sentencing.

Issues: Was the sentence cruel and unusual? Holding: No. Rationale: 5 to 4 vote held that California’s three

strikes law did not violate the 8th Amendment under the proportionality principle. Such laws were a "deliberate policy choice" on the part of legislatures to isolate those who have "repeatedly engaged in serious or violent criminal behavior" from the rest of society in order to protect public safety.


Facts: Graham was 16 when he committed armed burglary and another crime. Under a plea agreement, the court sentenced Graham to probation and withheld adjudication of guilt. Later, the court found that he had violated the terms of his probation by committing additional crimes. The court found him guilty of the earlier charges, revoked his probation, and sentenced him to life in prison for the burglary.

Issues: Is it unconstitutional to sentence someone to life in prison without the possibility of parole for a non-homicide crime committed under the age of 18?

Holding: Yes. Rationale: The Court found the sentence to be a violation

of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment if a youth “did not kill or intend to kill.”


Facts: While robbing a home, Furman woke up the owner. However, in the midst of his attempt to escape, a firearm that he had been carrying was discharged striking and killing the owner of the home. State law allowed the jury to impose death for a killing during a felony such as burglary.

Issues: Was this procedure cruel and unusual? Holding: Yes. Rationale: Ruled its law as it stood was capricious

and hence, cruel and unusual punishment. The Court ruled that the states had to give judges and juries more guidance in capital sentencing to prevent discretionary use of the death penalty.


Due to the Furman case, executions were suspended across the country.

The federal government passed a new death penalty law instituting a new two-step process (bifurcated trial):1. Determine innocence or guilt. 2. Determine whether to seek the death

penalty.


Roper v. Simmons , 543 U.S. 551 (2005)

Facts: 17 year old Simmons entered the home of the victim, committed robbery, bound the victim, and threw her off a bridge in a nearby state park, killing her. He was sentenced to death.

Issues: Is it cruel and unusual to execute minors? Holding: Yes. Rationale: Under the "evolving standards of decency"

test, the Court held that it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute a person who was under the age of 18 at the time of the murder. In support of the "national consensus" position, the Court noted the increasing infrequency with which states were applying capital punishment for juvenile offenders.


Mental Retardationo Atkins v. Virginia (2002)• The Supreme Court has prohibited executing the

mentally retarded. The Mentally Ill

o The Supreme Court banned execution of the insane.

o Ford v. Wainwright (1986)• An inmate that becomes mentally ill while in prison

can not be executed.


8th Amendment rights are divides into two categories:1. Actions against individual prisoners.2. Institutional conditions.

Cases based on the 8th Amendment for prisoners include:o Overcrowdingo Solitary confinemento Corporal punishmento Physical abuseo Use of forceo Treatment and rehabilitation, the right not to be treatedo Death penalty


The Supreme Court has been called on to determine whether conditions and actions within correctional institutions constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Rhodes v. Chapman (1981)o Double-celling and crowding do not necessarily

constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Wilson v. Seiter (1991)

o Prisoners must prove prison conditions are objectively cruel and unusual and show they exist because of officials’ deliberate indifference.

Chapter 12 - The Eighth Amendment: Bail, Fines, and Punishment

Education

Transcript of Chapter 12 - The Eighth Amendment: Bail, Fines, and Punishment