How has the Supreme Court interpreted the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment?

The prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment is a fundamental right afforded by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This right has been interpreted in various ways by the United States Supreme Court over the years. In the case of Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the Supreme Court held that the death penalty did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, so long as “there are safeguards to ensure that the sentencing authority is given adequate information and guidance” when assessing the appropriateness of the sentence. In the case of Wilkerson v. Utah (1878), the Supreme Court held that the “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibition also applied to all forms of corporal punishment, including flogging. The court found that this was in violation of the Eighth Amendment as it violated “society’s standards of decency”. Likewise, in the case of Trop v. Dulles (1958), the Supreme Court held that the “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibition applies to punishments which are “excessive” and “arbitrary” when compared to what is “generally approved within the civilization of the times”. This case applied to the punishment of denationalization which is defined as the loss or denial of the right to a nationality or citizen. Ultimately, the Supreme Court has interpreted the “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibition as the right to be protected from punishments which violate “society’s standards of decency”, are deemed “excessive” or “arbitrary”, or which do not provide enough guidance for the sentencing authority to implement it appropriately.

How has the Supreme Court interpreted the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts