The document discusses the philosophies and key cases related to the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment across different Supreme Court eras. It provides an overview of major cases from the Warren Court, which established that addiction is an illness, to the Burger Court that ruled death is an excessive punishment for rape. The Rhenquist Court prohibited death penalties for the mentally disabled and juveniles. The Roberts Court has so far upheld lethal injection methods but may reconsider the constitutionality of the death penalty in the future based on recent trends.

1. Running head: PHILOSOPHIES & RULINGS
1
Running Head: PHILOSOPHIES & RULINGS 2
Supreme Court Philosophies and Rulings
Deanna Havens
Professor Alero Afejuku
Constitutional & Judicial Processes/CRJ514
Date:
Supreme Court Philosophies and Rulings
The eighth amendment to the constitution of United States,
states that neither shall excessive bail be required, nor
imposition of excessive fines, nor infliction of cruel and
unusual punishment. Bail becomes excessive when set at a
higher figure than a reasonable amount calculated to guarantee
the appearance of the defendant at trial. The intention of
excessive fines section is to limit fines only payable to and
imposed by the government. However, it is applicable to cases
on civil forfeiture. The amendment on cruel and unusual
punishment prohibits entirely some punishments and forbids

2. other punishments which are excessive in comparison to the
crime or to the perpetrator’s competence.
The Warren Court (1953-1969), best and earliest decision on
criminal law was the case of Robinson v. California (Powe,
2000). Robinson was arrested by a police officer under
California law because the officer claimed that Robinson was an
addict of narcotics and so Robinson was sentenced to
imprisonment of 90 days. According to the Warren Court, this
was a violation to the eighth amendment as the court made an
assumption that addiction to narcotics is an illness and hence
sentencing a person due to that is similar to forbidding the
status of being ill. This language made observers to predict that
a constitutionalized act that would forbid the punishment of
narcotics addicts for its sale and possession, would be adopted
by the court. Conversely, this was different in the Powell v.
Texas case near the end of the era of the court. Powell was
convicted for being an alcoholic because he was found in public
drunk despite the fact that he argued that he was not able to stop
himself from drinking and going out in public. He further
argued that being punished for that act is similar to punishing
his alcoholism disease. Justice Marshall’s opinion was that
Powell was being punished for the act of being drunk while in
public. It appears, therefore, that the eighth amendment of the
court forbids only the punishment of propensity and pure status.
The Warren Court never issued any decision that interpreted the
clause on excessive fines nor concerning cases that challenged
lengthy prison sentences. The court heard the case of Oyler v.
Boles that challenged which offenders are to be charged under
the law on habitual offenders. The court stated that the
constitutionality on the laws of habitual offender was not open
to stern challenge. In the case of Spencer v. Texas, the court
allowed the inclusion of previous crimes in the indictment of
habitual offenders. The conclusion of the court was that juries
are trustworthy to not reflect the previous crimes as to the
innocence or guilt of the current offence. The court was also
silent on both excessive prison terms and issues on death

3. penalty. However, in disparity to its dealing with laws on
habitual offender, the court imposed protections in cases on
death penalty.
The political philosophy of the Warrens Court was conservative
in nature. It discriminated against women for jury services, only
few women were elected for jury services in some states like
Florida and in others like South Carolina, no women were in the
jury. Also, in Pennsylvania there was a law that obligated
stores to close on Sundays as it was the day of the Lord. Chief
Justice Warren agreed that the Sunday law was to regulate
secular activities on that day. Similarly, it was biased in terms
of races evidenced in the case of Swain v. Alabama whereby an
all-white jury convicted the African- American after excluding
some black men from being jurors of the case. Finally, its
conservatism is seen through punishing addiction in the case of
Powell.
Significant changes in the court concerning the eighth
amendment include; declaring that the laws on death penalty
were unconstitutional, application of the clause on excessive
fines to civil and criminal forfeitures and lastly application of
the clause on unusual punishment to the divestment of
citizenship penalty in the case Trop v. Dulles (Berry III, 2013).
The Burger Court (1969-1986), major case on the eighth
amendment was Furman v. Georgia (Chayes, 1982). In the case
Furman was committing robbery in the middle of the night and
when the resident awoke Furman killed him. Furman claimed
that while he was escaping, he stumbled and his weapon
accidentally fired and killed the victim. This statement
contradicted his previous one to police in which he said that he
had fired a shot blindly while fleeing. In either incident, since
the shooting happened while committing a felony, Furman
would still have been found guilty and worthy of the death
penalty. Based majorly on his statement, the jury found Furman
guilty for murder but his punishment on death sentence was not
carried out. This is because the opinion of the court was that
death penalty imposition in the case was in itself cruel and

4. unusual punishment. The concurring judges were Byron White,
Potter Stewart, William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall and
William Brennan. Branch v. Texas and Jackson v. Georgia are
the other cases that were similar to the above (Jones &
Newburn, 2002). However, in the other two cases the convicted
had committed rape but not murder.
The political philosophy of the Burger Court was libertarian. It
is demonstrated by the fact that it prescribed states to ensure
that sentences on death penalty were not discriminatory because
it was often biased against defendants of the African-American
community.
The major change witnessed in the Burger Court era was that
capital punishment should not be the rape penalty. This is seen
in the case of Coker v. Georgia, where Coker ran-away from
prison while serving a number of sentences (Frase, 2004). He
broke into Elnita’s home where he raped her; consequently, he
was charged on rape and given death sentences. The Burger
Court’s decision was that rape deserves a serious punishment
but it cannot be compared to murder which takes away human
life and is hence, an excessive punishment to the rapist.
The Rhenquist Court (1986-2005), key cases concerning the
eighth amendment was Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v.
Simmons (Fallon, 2002). In the case of Atkins v. Virginia,
Atkins and Jones abducted Nesbit and stole cash from him.
They still drove Nesbitt to a nearby ATM and made him
withdraw more money after which they took him to a location
that was isolated and killed Nesbit by shooting him. After being
arrested, each of them claimed that the other had fired the shot.
Atkins's account of the proceedings, however, was inconsistent
while Jones’ version was credible and coherent. A negotiation
with Jones to testify against Atkins was done and Atkins was
convicted for murder. During trial the defense presented an IQ
test that confirmed the low IQ of Atkins and thus argued that he
was mentally retarded, nonetheless, he was given a death
sentence. The Rhenquist court later ruled out that making a
death penalty to a mentally retarded person is not just cruel but

5. unusual since that condition inhibits a person from reasoning
logically. Atkins death sentence was therefore stayed.
The Rhenquist Court also had a libertarian political philosophy.
This is denoted by the fact that the court wanted freedom from
bias as seen in the Miller-El v. Dretke where a death sentence
was overturned due to racial bias in the selection of jury; this
violated equal protection.
Significant changes in the law concerning the eighth amendment
in the Rhenquist Court was the court’s ruling that it was cruel to
impose death penalties on the mentally retarded (Atkins v.
Virginia) and juveniles (Roper v. Simmons). In Roper v.
Simmons, the 17year old Simmons killed Shirley Crook
(Dressler & Moritz, 2001). Justice Kennedy quoted a scientific
research which showed that compared to adults; juveniles lack a
sense of responsibility and maturity. Therefore, it is not
constitutional to execute juveniles; it is a form of cruel and
unusual punishment.
The Roberts Court (2005-present) strategic case so far on the
eighth amendment is on the 2008 Baze v. Rees which defended
the constitutionality of a certain lethal injection method applied
on capital punishment (Chemerinsky, 2008). Thomas Bowling
and Ralph Baze were given a death sentence in Kentucky and
they claimed that execution through legal injection is a
violation of the eighth amendment clause that forbids cruel and
unusual punishment. They claimed that the fatal chemicals used
by Kentucky, inflicted pain in the execution. The court,
however, said that the Kentucky method of execution was
constitutional and humane. It further detailed that the drug that
comes first in the multi-drug combination brings about
unconsciousness to the inmate.
The political philosophy of the Roberts Court is a libertarian-
conservative one. This is evidenced in a number of cases that
are however not related to the eighth amendment. Some of the
justices are libertarian while others are conservative. Its
libertarian nature is seen in the case of United States v.

6. Windsor, where a 5-4 was held by the court on the Marriage Act
Defense which defines marriage as being between a woman and
a man; this violates equality and the court therefore allowed gay
marriages. On the other hand, its conservative nature is
portrayed in them allowing religious-based corporations to deny
giving their employees’ health insurance for family planning, in
the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
So far, there has not been any major change in the law
concerning the eighth amendment in the Roberts Court.
However, Glossip v. Gross is a case in this year 2015 that tested
whether a drug called midazolam is sufficiently effective to be
administered in lethal injections. This gives a clue that most
probably in the future, there may be major changes in the eighth
amendment concerning the kind of drugs to be used in lethal
injections.
Based on current trends, the criminal justice process for the
eighth amendment will fundamentally change. The U.S.
Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts appears to be
on a track that will reconsider the constitutionality of the clause
on death penalty. The court is yet to weigh whether the clause is
a violation to the article on cruel and unusual punishment. Last
month during a speech at a Tennessee college, Justice Scalia
suggested that the view on ruling the penalty on death as
unconstitutional is being held by four justices; this is according
to Los Angeles Times report. The thought comes amongst
renewed consideration on the contentious issue recently sparked
by Pope Francis’ plea in the address to Congress in September
for the universal abolition of the clause on death penalty.
President Obama supports the clause on certain cases but has
shown possibilities of changing his position predominantly after
an execution that failed last year in Oklahoma. This encouraged
him to command a study of matters that surround capital
punishment. According to the White House, Obama has been
influenced by the remarks of pope in Washington. Recently, in
the Marshall Project interview, President Obama admits that
death penalty is deeply troubling. He further referenced; racial

7. inequalities in its application, convicts who were found
innocent, the time taken to carry it out and recent clumsy
executions.
Scheidegger said that cases that challenged the penalty on death
have been brought already to the court for more than 50 years.
He goes on to say that possible vacancies on the court combined
with a different president will threaten the practice on death
penalty. This is because justices who are nominated by the
Democratic presidents are much more criminal friendly as
compared to those appointed by a president in a Republican
party. Nevertheless, polls have shown consistently that in some
cases, the death penalty is right and just.
Reference List
Powe, L. S. (2000). The Warren court and American politics.
Belknap Press.
Chayes, A. (1982). Foreword: Public law litigation and the
Burger Court. Harv. L. Rev., 96, 4.
Fallon Jr, R. H. (2002). The" conservative" paths of the
Rehnquist Court's federalism decisions. The University of
Chicago Law Review, 429-494.

8. Chemerinsky, E. (2008). Roberts Court at Age Three, The.
Wayne L. Rev., 54, 947.
Berry III, W. W. (2013). Eighth Amendment Differentness. Mo.
L. Rev., 78, 1053.
Frase, R. S. (2004). Excessive Prison Sentences, Punishment
Goals, and the Eighth Amendment: Proportionality Relative to
What. Minn. L. Rev., 89, 571.
Dressler, J., Strong, F. R., & Moritz, M. E. (2001).
Understanding criminal law (pp. 151-163). Lexis Pub.
Jones, T., & Newburn, T. (2002). The transformation of
policing? Understanding current trends in policing systems.
British journal of criminology, 42(1), 129-146.