Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … Supreme Court established in analyzing the constitutionality of punishment? List and discuss at least three of them.
The only specific mention of definition of legally administrable punishment in the U.S. Constitution is that the punishment not be cruel and unusual, a vague semantic term that has proved fertile ground for both opponents and proponents of the death penalty. Capital punishment, however, was declared unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia (1972). This was not because it meted out death to a defendant. Rather, it was the grounds that it was administered in a cruel and unusual fashion. Thus it was in violation of the
... Constitution. Also, Georgia's capital punishment laws were meted out in an unclearly defined fashion that was overly subjective, and according to sociological data submitted to the court, seemed to unfairly penalize African-Americans. It was also thus in violation of the equal protection clause and violated defendant's civil rights. This decision, after Georgia further clarified its statutes and after the court changed in its ideological composition, was later overturned in Gregg v. Georgia (1976). Still, even today the court requires that a punishment not be cruel, unusual, and that according to the equal protection clause, must be equitably enforced.
Source
Supreme Court, United States: History." The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. © 1994, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 on Infoplease.
© 2000 -- 2004 Pearson Education, publishing as…
Work Cited
"Dred Scott Case." The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia.© 1994, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 on Infoplease. © 2000 -- 2004 Pearson Education, publishing as Infoplease. 25 Jan. 2005 <http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0816089.html>.
The true spirit and meaning of the amendments, as we said in the Slaughter-House Cases (16 Wall. 36), cannot be understood without keeping in view the history of the times when they were adopted, and the general objects they plainly sought to accomplish. At the time when they were incorporated into the Constitution, it required little knowledge of human nature to anticipate that those who had long been regarded
Determination of Federal Court of Appeal in the case of Canterbury vs. Spence Canterbury filed a lawsuit against Spence in the United States. In this lawsuit, Canterbury alleged that Dr. Spence had shown negligence when performing laminectomy on Canterbury and failed to inform him fully about the risks involved in the surgery. In addition, the lawsuit argued that Dr. Spence had negligent as he allowed Canterbury to remain unattended to following
NFIB vs. The Affordable Care Act The Affordable Care Act brought to the Supreme Court by 26 states of the United States to determine its constitutionality, was confirmed by the courts as was expected by many people. The case was between National Federations of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB). The Supreme Court upheld the ACA and its expansion in a fragmented and complicated opinion that saw it also limit the ability
Capital Punishment Solitary confinement represents one among the best means of keeping modern-day prisoners from communication and conflict, but has the most injurious effects on their health. Individuals imprisoned in conditions of solitary confinement demonstrate more psychotic behavior compared to normal prisoners; this includes higher rate of suicides (Thesis Statement). After a prisoner loses his/her mental capacity of understanding the reason for his/her imprisonment or punishment, subjecting him/her to solitary confinement
S.B. 1070, ACA, AND FEDERAL PREEMPTION 1070, the ACA, and Federal Preemption S.B. 1070, the ACA, and Federal Preemption Tenth Amendment The Tenth Amendment was intended to limit the scope and power of the federal government, thereby preserving some measure of state autonomy (Lash, 2006). The Tenth Amendment accomplishes this by stating explicitly that the federal government can only exercise those powers enumerated within the U.S. Constitution. All other powers are left to the
Had the court applied consistency in their different rulings to local hate crimes, this case would have been settled in the lower court. As the previous decisions that Mitchell was using to justify his words; were clearly in appropriate decisions made by the court that did not protect free speech. Instead, it enabled someone to be a racist, because they could hide behind the First Amendment. It is through