Exam 3 Study Guide FINAL

Exam 3 Study Guide FINAL - Exam III Study Guide Lesson 7...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Exam III Study Guide Lesson 7: Cruel and Unusual Punishment • Cruel and Unusual Punishment • Torture does not equal Cruel and Unusual Punishment • Torture is usually done to get information about a crime, not as a punishment. • 5 th Amendment Due Process Clause • Applies to people in the territorial US, even if they are not US citizens. • 8 th Amendment – Cruel and Unusual Punishment • Has been very broadly incorporated • Requires that punishment be both cruel AND unusual • Punishment can be unusual (ex: uncommon) but not unconstitutional • If a punishment is cruel and yet common, it can still be unusual in the sense that it is unjust or excessive (arbitrary). • Robinson v. California (1962) • Facts: • CA statute made it a criminal offense for a person to “be addicted to the use of narcotics.” • Lawrence Robinson was convicted under the law, which required a sentence of at least 90 days in jail • State appellate court affirmed Robinson’s conviction on appeal • Issue: • Was the CA law an infliction of cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the 8 th Amendment? • Decision: • 6-2 in favor of Robinson , written by Stewart • Legal provision = 8 th Amendment Cruel and Unusual • Reasoning: • Court held that laws imprisoning persons afflicted with the “illness” of narcotics addiction inflicted cruel and unusual punishment in violation o the 8 th and 14 th Amendments. • Court likened law to one making it a criminal offense “to be mentally ill, or a leper, or to be afflicted with a venereal disease,” and argued that state could not punish persons merely because of their “status” of addiction • Court noted that the law was not aimed at the purchase, sale, or possession of illegal drugs. • Background of Death Penalty • In 1972 looked like DP was dying out – 5 years since anyone has been executed. • Furman v. Georgia was just decided. • In 1976 the USSC had changed • More conservative justices • Reinstated the Death Penalty • There is no mandatory Death Penalty, and no Death Penalty strictly for rape. • 1980s: • Can’t put to death anyone under 16 , but 16 and 17 can get it. • 1990s: • You can put mentally retarded to death • 2000 – Death Penalty Fading • Can’t put to death anyone under 18 (Simmons case) or Mentally Retarded (Adkins case) • Furman v. Georgia (1971) • *Right around when DP started to die out • Facts : • Furman burglarized a home and a family member discovered him. • He attempted to flee, and in doing so he tripped and fell. • Gun he was carrying went off and killed a resident of the home. • Convicted of murder and sentenced to death • Two other DP cases were decided along with Furman: • Jackson v. Georgia – Concerns constitutionality of death sentence for rape • Branch v. Texas – Concerns constitutionality of death sentence for murder • Question : • Does the imposition and carrying out of DP in these cases constitute Cruel and...
View Full Document

  • '09
  • HowardSmith
  • First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Unusual Punishment

Page1 / 13

Exam 3 Study Guide FINAL - Exam III Study Guide Lesson 7...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online