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

The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment found in the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution as ultimately preventing the infliction of punishment which is excessive or disproportionately severe compared to the crime committed. The Supreme Court has explained that punishments considered cruel and unusual are determined by considering contemporary standards of decency, meaning that the definition may change over time. In Rhode Island, the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue of cruel and unusual punishment in cases such as State v. Laliberte, in which the Court applied the contemporary standards of decency test. In this case, the defendant was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 40 years for assault with a dangerous weapon, and the Court held the sentence was not cruel and unusual because it was not "grossly disproportionate" to the crime. The Court has also held in cases such as State v. Gomes that capital punishment, or the death penalty, could be considered cruel and unusual punishment depending on the circumstances. In that case, the Court held that the death penalty was unconstitutional when applied to a defendant who had not killed anyone, as the punishment was "clearly disproportionate" to the crime. In Rhode Island, the Supreme Court has been careful to follow the standard set by the US Supreme Court in ruling on cases involving cruel and unusual punishment, and has consistently held that punishments must be in line with contemporary standards and not grossly disproportionate.

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

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts