Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say a punishment must fit the crime. But a similar concept comes from the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the ban on cruel and unusual punishment as forbidding the government from imposing a criminal sentence that’s disproportionate to the crime committed. In practice, however, the Supreme Court has given the government (state and federal) a great deal of latitude in deciding the appropriate level of severity in criminal sentencing.
This article gives an overview of how the Supreme Court determines whether a criminal sentence is so excessive that it violates the Constitution and some specific instances where the Court has found a sentence unconstitutional.
(Note that this article is about the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Most state constitutions also have cruel and unusual punishment bans, some of which are more protective of criminal defendants than federal law.)
The Analysis: Cruel and Unusual Punishment in Sentencing
The prevailing view in the U.S. Supreme Court—though not all the justices on the Court agree—is that “evolving standards of decency” should guide the determination of whether a sentence is cruel and unusual. This approach recognizes public opinion about what’s an acceptable punishment changes over time. In other words, many punishments that may have been palatable when the Eighth Amendment was ratified in 1791 would likely offend modern sensibilities.
In deciding whether a sentence comports with current standards of decency, the Supreme Court looks to factors like:
- the gravity of the offense the defendant committed
- individual characteristics of the offender such as age, intellectual capacity, and criminal history
- the nature of the punishment
- the sentences for other crimes in the state where the offense occurred, and
- how other states punish the crime the defendant was convicted of.
However, a punishment is unconstitutional only if inherently barbaric or grossly excessive. This standard makes courts reluctant to strike down a sentence except in the most extreme circumstances.
(Read more about the history and meaning of the restriction on cruel and unusual punishment.)
Death Penalty
Many defendants condemned to death row have argued the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment’s restriction against cruel and unusual punishment. But thus far, the Supreme Court has declined to find capital punishment categorically unconstitutional. The Court has, however, found death sentences invalid in certain instances. The high Court has held death sentences to be cruel and unusual in cases where:
- the death penalty was imposed for a non-homicide offense (such as rape)
- the offender was under 18 years old when committing the offense, or
- the offender was intellectually disabled.
As public support for capital punishment continues to wane, abolitionists are hopeful that one day the Supreme Court will do away with the death penalty altogether.
Juvenile Cases
In Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), the Supreme Court addressed cruel and unusual punishment in the context of juvenile sentencing. In a nutshell, the Court concluded that the Eighth Amendment prohibits sentencing juveniles to life in prison without the possibility of parole (called “LWOP” for short) for non-homicide crimes.
In reaching its decision, the Court noted that—while the laws of many jurisdictions authorized LWOP for juvenile non-homicide offenders—actual sentencing practices showed LWOP was rarely imposed for minors convicted of non-homicide crimes. The Court also placed great emphasis on the limited moral culpability of underage offenders. The Court explained that, as compared to adults, minors have a “lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility.”
The Court, however, was careful to point out that homicide offenses are qualitatively different than other crimes. So the Graham decision is limited to non-homicide cases. While Graham doesn’t block states from imposing LWOP for juveniles convicted of murder or manslaughter, a subsequent Supreme Court case held that such a sentence cannot be mandatory. The law must allow the sentencing judge to consider the juvenile's individual circumstances before imposing an LWOP sentence. (Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).)
Three Strikes Laws
Three strikes laws—also referred to as recidivist or habitual offender laws—have become a hot topic of debate on whether they constitute cruel and unusual punishment in certain cases. Popular during the "tough on crime" era, these laws authorize, and sometimes mandate, enhanced sentences (often life sentences) for individuals who've been convicted of a third or subsequent offense.
The Supreme Court has ruled on several enhanced sentences imposed under states' recidivist laws—almost always upholding the sentence and law under the Eighth Amendment. For instance, in Ewing v. California, the Court upheld a 25-year-to-life sentence for a defendant's conviction for theft of $1,200 golf clubs. The defendant had four prior felonies. (538 U.S. 11 (2003).) Similarly, in Lockyer v. Andrade, a defendant unsuccessfully challenged his 25-year-to-life sentence for stealing $150 worth of videotapes; he had three prior felony convictions. (538 U.S. 63 (2003).)
Even with these rulings, state courts haven't always followed suit—some finding that their state's constitution offers more protection than the federal constitution. And, in some states, lawmakers have acted by amending their recidivist statutes so they are discretionary or apply only to current or past violent offenses (not a theft offense, for instance).
Questions on Criminal Sentencing
Criminal sentencing provisions vary by state. Federal crimes also carry their own penalties and enhancements. To learn more about sentencing in your case, contact a local criminal defense attorney. You can also explore our other articles on Sentencing.