Pros And Cons Of Weems Vs Texas

The 8th amendment states, “ Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Which brings me to the case of Thompson vs. Oklahoma. The debate is on whether or not capital punishment should be given to minors. On one hand, some may argue that Thompson should have been charged with capital punishment because “his acts were heinous and cruel” (Pearson Prentice Hall: n.d.). On the other hand, others such as Oklahoma argue that it is a violation of the 8th amendment under “cruel and unusual punishment.” This creates the argument of Thompson vs. Oklahoma.

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects us to not be putted into cruel and unusual punishments, but when it comes to the death penalty, things become more complicated. In my personal opinion, I believe the absolute interpretation of the 8th Amendment and that the death penalty undoubtedly violates the 8th Amendment. Looking at the case of “Furman v. Georgia (1972)”, the Court invalidated death penalty laws in the end because the justices considered the punishment of the death penalty was too cruel and unusual to the Furman’ sin, accidentally killing people, and disproportionately using the death penalty would result in more serious problems to the poor and minorities. This decision fully reflected the reliability of

The 8th amendment says that excessive bail shall not be required, or excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment.

In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty systems then in place were unconstitutional violations of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual” punishments. In response to the decision many states changed their death penalty systems. Four years later in Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the Court reaffirmed the death penalty as constitutional. Troy Gregg had been found guilty of murder and armed robbery and sentenced to death. He asked the Court to go further than it had in the Furman case, and rule the death penalty itself unconstitutional (n.d.,Web).

The famous Founding Fathers of the United States created critical documents to protect the citizens of the country they were establishing. These documents included the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. The latter, the Bill of Rights, ensures certain rights to all citizens, and the Eighth Amendment in particular, protects citizens against cruel or unusual punishments for breaking the law. When analyzing the protection under the Eighth Amendment one must also look at all the aspects of the law including: the history of the law, the modern uses and abuses of the law, and the law’s current effectiveness.

The Eighth Amendment was tested through many Supreme Court and there were some very significant ones such as the Miller v. Alabama. The no cruel or unusual aspect of the Eighth Amendment gives protection of undeserving or unreasonable punishment to a citizen that commits a crime. As Supreme Court cases regarding the Eighth Amendment open and closed the meaning of no cruel or unusual punishment changed; the sentencing of death is not considered cruel and/or unusual to a suspect that is mentally insane this aspect of the Eighth Amendment is important to the wrongfully accused people that are sentenced something for a crime that they did not commit. A significant

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits the punishments that may be imposed by the government on American citizens. These limits are compulsory among the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 expressed concern with arbitrary and disproportionate sanctions, giving way to the Founders inclusion of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. To explore the Eighth Amendment it is important to consider constitutionally accepted punishments, the ever-evolving practice of capital punishment, and eighth amendment protection inside prison walls.

Texas, while one of the largest and most diverse states in the United States is also one of the most ideologically conservative. This is especially prevalent through traditional behaviors and the religious influence upheld in its legislature. These qualities can be seen in vast majority in the Senate Bill No. 6, or more popularly known as the “Bathroom Bill”. This newly proposed bill was brought forth for the first time in May of 2016 and has since turned people to anger and fear as it has been gaining momentum.

This means in all cases, the accused person will enjoy the right to a quick and public trial by an unbiased judge of the state and county where the crime was committed. The county will be determined by law enforcement and the accused person has the right to be hold what they are accused of and able to confront witnesses against him/her as well as have the ability to call his/her own witnesses. The accused person has the right to have a lawyer to define him/her. The sixth Amendment does allow for equality because it allows a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer. The VII Amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. This means a large amount of bail will not be required to leave jail or a large amount of fines imposed on people who are guilty, or cruel punishment used on people who are in jail. Amendment Eighth does allow for equality because it prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, but also mentions “excessive

The court instance of Solem v. Helm in 1983 was worried with the extent of the Eighth Amendment insurance from coldblooded and uncommon discipline. An individual, or the Respondent, with a criminal history of peaceful lawful offenses was liable to a recidivism statute subsequent to being indicted another lawful offense. Mr. Rudder, who had composed a check from an imaginary record and had achieved his seventh peaceful crime conviction since 1964, got an obligatory sentence, under South Dakota law around then, to life in jail with no parole. Solicitor Mr. Solem was the superintendent of the South Dakota State Penitentiary at the time. Rudder was indicted composing a check from an invented account, a wrongdoing conveying with it a five-year imprison

First of all I think that people should get punished for doing bad things because they were the ones who did it. I don’t think that it is right for the people that do bad things don’t get punished at all. It's not right. What if you were going to plan to murder someone and then they don’t get punished because the 8th amendment

Section three of Chapter Eight titled Doing Justice begins with the following sentence “It should be obvious that laws and trials mean something.” The role that legislated laws play in maintaining the stability and integrity of our society is something that many individuals assume to be determined by unbiased social convention. Throughout Section three the perceived significance of the law is critically examined. Additionally, the section analyzes the effectiveness of implemented legislation in the dispensation of justice to all American citizens.

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution bans punishment that is cruel and unusual. Implicit in that ban is the principle of proportionality, meaning that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense. Punishments that are disproportionate have been deemed cruel and unusual. There is much debate about what these words mean. The debate seems to focus on whether the provision was intended only to govern modes of punishment or intended also to include a proportionality principle, prohibiting prison sentences disproportionate to the crime.

(Pater). Examining the disparity in the outcomes of these two cases demonstrates how the Ewing court failed to illuminate the current interpretation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court failed to exact any real change in mandatory sentencing for recidivist offenders with the Ewing

The U.S. Constitution provides equal protection to all citizens, regardless of race, color, or state of residence. As such, cases of Fourth Amendment violations should yield consistent verdicts across jurisdictions. The objective reasonableness standard adopted in Heien, however, fails to ensure uniform application of the Forth Amendment. In contrast, a categorical exclusion of evidence obtained through a mistake of law would have ensured equal application of the law and excluded inconsistency in criminal verdicts.