Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against excessive bail or fines, as well as against cruel and unusual punishment. The phrases employed are taken from the English Bill of Rights.
Text
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
==Excessive bail 8====DIn England, sheriffs originally determined whether or not to grant bail to criminal suspects. Since they tended to exploit their power, Parliament passed a statute in 1275 whereby bailable and non-bailable offenses were defined. The King's judges often subverted the provisions of the law. It was held that an individual may be held without bail upon the Sovereign's command. Eventually, the Petition of Right of 1628 argued that the King did not have such authority. Later, technicalities in the law were exploited to keep the accused imprisoned without bail even where the offenses were bailable; such loopholes were for the most part closed by the Habeas Corpus Act 1677. Thereafter, judges were compelled to set bail, but they often required impracticable amounts. Finally, the English Bill of Rights (1689) held that "excessive bail ought not to be required." Nevertheless, the Bill did not abolish the distinction between bailable and non-bailable offenses. Thus, the Eighth Amendment has been interpreted to mean that bail may be denied where the charges are sufficiently serious. The Supreme Court has also permitted "preventetive" detention without bail. It held in United States v. Salerno (1987), the Supreme Court held that the only limitation imposed by the bail clause is that "the government's proposed conditions of release or detention not be 'excessive' in light of the perceived evil."
Excessive fines
The protection against excessive fines applies only in respect of the government. Punitive damages awarded in civil trials are not governed by the clause, as the Supreme Court held in Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, Inc. (1989). The Supreme Court has held that the wealth of the defendant need not be considered when deciding the excessiveness of a fine; neither has the Court ever explicitly set a maximum figure for fines.
Cruel and unusual punishments
The infliction of certain punishments has been deemed totally forbidden by the constitution. Trop v. Dulles (1958) held that depriving a natural born citizen of citizenship is unconstitutional, being "more primitive than torture" because it involved the "total destruction of the individual's status in organized society". In Wilkerson v. Utah (1878), the Supreme Court commented that drawing and quartering, public dissecting, burning alive and embowelling would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. One may accurately suggest that torture is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
It is often asserted that capital punishment is unconstitutional. Until the latter part of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court upheld capital punishment. Furman v. Georgia (1972) was a landmark case that reversed the trend. Potter Stewart suggested that the penalty was "wantonly and freakishly imposed," comparing the controverted death sentence to "being struck by lightning." Only two Justices felt that capital punishment itself was unconstitutional; William J. Brennan held that it "does not comport with human dignity"; Thurgood Marshall found that it was "morally unacceptable" and "excessive." Several states then proceeded to craft death penalty statutes in such a manner as to answer Justice Stewart's objections. Some states passed laws imposing mandatory death penalties in certain cases; the Supreme Court found these laws unconstitutional. Other statutes specifying factors for courts to use in making their decisions have been upheld. Such factors, however, may not be extremely vague. Thus, in Godfrey v. Georgia (1980), the Supreme Court overturned a sentence based upon a finding that a murder was "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman," as it deemed that any murder may be reasonably characterized in this manner. Similarly, in Maynard v. Cartwright (1988), the Court found that an "especially heinous, atrocious or cruel" standard was too vague. The Court has further held that capital punishment may only be imposed if the defendant kills, or attempts to kill, the victim.
Weems v. United States (1910) held that a punishment is cruel and unusual if it is excessive. The Weems case, however, dealt with a sentence that mandated "hard and painful labor", shackling for the duration of incarceration, and permanent civil disabilities. In Coker v. Georgia (1977), the Court declared that the death penalty may not be imposed for rape of an adult female and, by implication, for any crime other than murder.
Traditionally, the length of a prison sentence was not subject to scrutiny under the clause, regardless of the crime for which the sentence was imposed. It was not until the case of Solem v. Helm (1983) that the Supreme Court held that incarceration, standing alone, could constitute cruel and unusual punishment if it was "disproportionate" in duration with respect to the offense. The Court outlined three factors that were to be considered in determining if the sentence is excessive: "(i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions." The Court held that under the circumstances of the case before it and the factors to be considered, a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for cashing a $100 check on a closed account was cruel and unusual punishment.