Cruel and Unusual Punitive Measures in US Law - Essay Sample

The essence of the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment is to insulate inmates from mistreatment. This right is enshrined in the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, which stipulates that each convict must not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. What this means is that the Constitution principally continues to guarantee a persons fundamental rights even after sentencing. The purpose of this essay is to set out what is considered as cruel and unusual punitive measures in US law. In particular, the discussion tackles the definition of this concept as set out in judicial precedence and how it pertains to incarceration conditions and treatment as well as capital punishment. Also, the analysis examines how proportionality and evolving standards of decency have an impact on what merits the reference, cruel and unusual punishment.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The Eighth Amendment affords constitutional protection to inmates, but fails to provide a concise definition of which actions and conditions qualify as cruel and unusual chastisement. Courts have over the years tried to resolve this ambiguity by setting out a number of factors that help delineate the term. One of the earliest precedences was set by Chief Justice Henry W. Collier in the 1844 case, Turnipseed v. State. In this case, the judge explained that the term cruel as contemplated in the Eighth Amendment refers to the infliction of pain or suffering upon the convicts body or mind. However, it is worth mentioning here that not every punishment that a person receives is considered cruel. On the other hand, the form of punishment that qualifies as unusual is one that is inherently and highly uncommon infliction of harm or cruelty (Wittes, 2005).

In yet another case, Furman v. Georgia, the 9th Circuit Court applied itself in delineating the scope of the term cruel and unusual punishment. First of all, the 9th Circuit held that the punishment must be one that degrades a persons human dignity (Alasti, 2006). A good example of treatments that are degrading include torture and having to live under deplorable conditions. Second, the severe reprisal was meted arbitrarily against the convicted person (Alasti, 2006). Further, the punishment must be one that society rejects overtly (Alasti, 2006). The last factor that the court prescribes is that the severe punishment is in itself patently unwarranted (Alasti, 2006). This precedence offers great guidance, into what conditions or treatment courts would consider deeming as cruel and unusual treatment.

Poor incarceration conditions and mistreatment can qualify as cruel and unusual punitive measures as they violate a persons basic human dignity. In the first place, inmates have the right to receive any basic amenities as was determined in Newman v. State of Alabama. Here, the court held that officials in correctional institutions should not withhold basic amenities such as adequate food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and sanitation from inmates. Therefore, forcing prisoners to live in surroundings that are fraught with vermin and unsanitary, depriving them of medical attention, and offering inadequate food is unconstitutional.

However, this does not mean that cruel and unusual punishment does not go beyond the deprivation of the mentioned necessities. There is a suite of other conditions and practices that can also qualify as unconstitutional, provided. It suffices simply that the conditions or practices in question are inhuman, an uncommon infliction of cruelty, and a violation of ones dignity. There is a myriad of conditions that courts can deem cruel and unusual including overcrowding in prison quarters, keeping inmates in dangerous barracks, the absence of rehabilitation programs in the institutions, as well as overly long stays in isolation cells. These far-reaching factors were alluded to by lower courts in the Arkansas case, Holt v. Finney and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Other than the scope of incarceration conditions that would be considered inhumane, it is also necessary to identify what elements courts typically consider when one brings a case to challenge confinement conditions. For example, the case may concern unsanitary conditions characterized by unclean washrooms, the presence of vermin, and unsanitary food. The inmate will have to demonstrate the prison officials were deliberately indifferent of the violation. What this means is that the claimant would have to show that the officers in charge were conscious of the risk and that it would lead harm the prisoner. Even so, the employees failed to take any appropriate action to remedy the situation. Due to this omission on their part, there was a violation of the inmates rights. These elements were set out in the leading case Estelle v. Gamble where correctional officers neglected to attend to the medical needs of an inmate (Cornell University Law School, n.d.).

Cruel and unusual punishment also entail the wanton exercise of force. In the Hudson v. McMillan case, the court held that prison officials must not use force maliciously and sadistically to hurt inmates. In this case, correctional officers handcuffed and shackled the victim and beat him up in plain view of a prison supervisor. The court took into consideration whether a significant injury was inflicted on the convict or he merely suffered minor injuries that did not warrant any medical attention. This would seem to suggest that courts typically weigh the injury suffered by the inmate to consider the use of excessive force as cruel and unusual.

However, it is common practice for judges to shift their focus from the magnitude of injury to the application of force itself. To be precise, a claimant would have to show that the officers did not apply the force in good faith as a disciplinary measure or as a way of maintaining or restoring order in the institution (Cornell University Law School, n.d.). The action must have been malicious and sadistic. This standard, as set out in Hudson v. McMillan, shows that a successful claim would have the following ingredients:

The officers applied the faith in bad faith

The force was not meant to maintain and restore discipline

There was sadistic and malicious intent

What this means is that there are instances where officials can apply force lawfully. One good example of this is when confronted with a disturbance in prison, and there is a need to apply force to restore order. The implication of this exception, however, is not that the use of force is entirely unfettered under these circumstances. It is imperative that the correctional officers take care to balance the threat posed by the unrest to the administrators, visitors, workers, and the inmates themselves. Due to the peculiar nature of unrest, it would be inappropriate to establish that there was deliberate indifference on the part of the officials.

Another key area that pertains to cruel and unusual punitive measures is capital punishment. Judicial precedence in the United States still favors the perpetuation of the death sentence in the United States. The implication of this stance is that the death penalty does not violate the constitution and does not, therefore, qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. However, in Furham v. Georgia, the 9th Circuit Court deemed the death penalty issued in California unconstitutional because of the manner in which it was executed. In the immediate aftermath of the ruling, there was mounting speculation that this meant that the death penalty was unconstitutional or that the Supreme Court was poised to issue a decision that outlawed capital punishment.

The 9th Circuit did not mean that placing convicts on death row was unconstitutional. The court articulated that Californias exercise of the death penalty was what failed to meet constitutional standards. The aspects that were problematic and, therefore, unconstitutional were the delays as well as uncertainty surrounding the penalty that rendered it a cruel and unusual punishment. Inmates who were on death row were more likely to succumb to other causes of death rather than execution (Callan, 2013). The arbitrariness that characterized the selection of who was executed and when this took place was unlawful, and the whole process defeated the deterrent and retributive impact of the punishment (Callan, 2013).

Pertinent to cruel and unusual punishment concerns in the United States is the proportionality of the chastisement, particularly in capital offenses. The consensus is that the punishment that a person receives must be equivalent to the crime they committed (Carlan et al., 2014). A notable area in which this argument is successful is capital punishment in rape cases. Issuing the death penalty in a rape case amounts to excessive punishment and is, therefore, cruel and unusual punishment. This was the Supreme Courts decision in Coker v. Georgia. In yet another case, Kennedy v. Louisiana, the court determined that child rape is a noncapital offense.

Evolving standards of decency is a concept that provides a framework for determining what conditions or actions constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 1958 case, Trop v. Dulles, articulated that the Eight Constitutional Amendment must derive its meaning from the societys evolving standards decency. This expansive approach to interpreting the provision is instrumental because it takes into consideration inadvertent societal changes. Indeed, it would be absurd if the law permitted correctional institutions to be operated under conditions that are reminiscent of the 1800s. While such conditions may have been appropriate for that era, they cannot possibly be permissible in the contemporary American society. Critics of this concept, however, assert that it is premised on the erroneous assumption that society will always change for the better.

The preceding discussion establishes what is considered cruel and unusual punishment under US law. It suffices that the practices or treatment involves the uncommon infliction of pain on a convict. The ingredients of cruel and unusual punishment vary according to the circumstances of the case. As regards confinement conditions, the denial of basic needs such as adequate food and medical attention as well as being forced to live in overcrowded, dangerous, and an unsanitary environment is unconstitutional. It is also unlawful for prison officials to apply force to prisoners maliciously, sadistically, and in bad faith. The only exception here is where the force was necessary to maintain discipline or restore order in case of a prison disturbance. The death sentence is unconstitutional, but its execution must not be arbitrary and must be proportionate to the offense committed. Finally, the interpretation of the Eight Amendment must take into account the evolving standards of decency.

References

Alasti, S. (2006). Comparative Study of Cruel & Unusual Punishment for Engaging in Consensual Homosexual Acts (In International Conventions, the United States, and Iran). Ann. Surv. Int'l & Comp. L., 12, 149-269.

Callan, P. (2014). Do death penalty delays make it cruel and unusual? CNN. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/25/opinion/callan-death-penalty-delays-cruel/.

Carlan, P., Nored, L. S., & Downey, R. A. (2011). An Introduction to criminal law. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Cornell University Law School. (n.d.). Cruel and unusual punishment. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cruel_and_unusual_punishment.

Wittes, B. (2005). What Is Cruel and Unusual? Policy Review, December.