August 24, 2010
"Rethinking Proportionality Under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause"The title of this post is the title of this terrific-looking new article by John Stinneford that is now available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Although a century has passed since the Supreme Court started reviewing criminal punishments for excessiveness under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, this area of doctrine remains highly problematic. The Court has never answered doubts about the legitimacy of proportionality review, leading a controlling plurality of the Court to insist that such review be limited to a narrow class of cases. The Court has also adopted an ever-shifting definition of excessiveness, making the very concept of proportionality incoherent . Finally, the Court’s method of measuring proportionality is unreliable and self-contradictory. As a result, very few offenders have benefited from the Court’s decision to engage in proportionality review. This area of doctrine needs rethinking.
This article is the first to establish that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause was originally meant to prohibit excessive punishments as well as barbaric ones, and that proportionality review is therefore unquestionably legitimate. This article also demonstrates that proportionality is a retributive concept, not a utilitarian one. Punishments are unconstitutionally excessive if they are harsher than the defendant deserves as a retributive matter. Finally, this article shows that proportionality should be measured primarily in relation to prior punishment practice. The proposed approach will align the Court’s proportionality jurisprudence more closely with the core purpose of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, and will enable the Court to expand proportionality review to a much larger class of cases.
August 24, 2010 at 05:24 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Rethinking Proportionality Under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause":
I am a webmaster dealing with few financial websites on topics like debt, mortgage, credit, loans etc. I came to know about your website: from different search engines and I really liked the content of your website:(http://sentencing.typepad.com/) I must say that the content of your site is quite rich and worth reading.
But only good content will not help you to gain higher ranking in the search engines. For that you require quality link exchange too. And so for this reason I have come with a new proposal for your website.
If you are interested then please let me know and I will send you the required details. If u want we can also do article exchanges.
Looking forward for your earliest reply.
Posted by: Emily Jones | Aug 25, 2010 6:05:52 AM