3/3 Notes

Reading Assignment

• Chapter 7 of Grant's work is the only reading required for Wednesday.

• This chapter introduces different theories of punishment, providing a foundation for the discussion surrounding the philosophy and ethical considerations of legal punishment.

• It is a short chapter, making it manageable for students to comprehend the key concepts thoroughly.

• Expect to engage in a detailed discussion of the self-defense view of punishment in class, which posits that punishment can be justified as a form of self-protection for society.

Background Context

1991 Case: Hamelin v. Michigan

• The case involves a defendant, Hamelin, convicted of possessing a significant amount of cocaine, which raised questions about the severity of sentencing under the Eighth Amendment.

• Hamelin was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole, a punishment that he appealed, arguing it constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

Eighth Amendment Basics

• The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive fines, excessive bail, and cruel and unusual punishments, highlighting fundamental rights in the American legal system.

• The relevant text, known as the punishments clause, states: "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted," which has been pivotal in discussions regarding punishment severity.

Scalia's Opinion

• The Hamelin case is crucial for understanding Justice Scalia’s perspective on punishment, emphasizing his originalist approach to constitutional interpretation.

• His opinion is termed a plurality opinion since it was the most supported opinion but not a majority.

• Chief Justice William Rehnquist assigned Scalia to draft the court's opinion, which reflects significant elements of Scalia's judicial philosophy.

The Justices’ Agreement

• Scalia's opinion received support from only one other justice, Rehnquist, despite being the dominant narrative in the court's decision.

• Justice Anthony Kennedy concurred in part but disagreed with aspects of Scalia's reasoning, particularly concerning the limits of punishment.

• Part Four of Scalia's judgment specifically discussed precedent regarding proportionality in capital punishment cases, leading to a division in opinion among the justices.

Majority vs. Dissenting Opinions

• The central argument in the case revolves around proportionality in sentencing:

  • Scalia’s Camp: Arguments suggest that there is no proportionality requirement in non-capital cases, emphasizing the cruelty of punishment, but not necessarily its unusualness.

  • Kennedy’s View: Advocates for a minimal proportionality requirement that exists only in extreme cases of punishment.

  • White’s Dissent: Argues for a more robust proportionality principle, contending that Hamelin's life sentence for non-violent drug possession is constitutionally disproportionate.

Breakdown of Opinions

• Scalia’s Opinion consists of multiple parts:

  • Part One, Two, and Three: Focus on arguments against a proportionality requirement in non-capital cases, framing punishment within a broader societal context.

  • Part Four: Appeals to historical precedent regarding capital cases, indicating that capital punishment must meet stringent proportionality standards.

Historical Context of Cruel and Unusual Punishment

• The phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" has origins predating the Eighth Amendment, appearing in earlier legal frameworks such as the Virginia Bill of Rights and rooted in English common law principles.

• Thurgood Marshall’s Historical Context: He argued that ‘cruel’ involved excessive punishment with implications of torture, reinforcing the necessity for minimizing harm in punitive measures.

Judicial Interpretation of Cruelty

• A significant debate exists surrounding the interpretation of ‘cruel’ in the original context, with perspectives like Granucci’s suggesting that it involved excessiveness, thus requiring proportionality in sentencing.

• Scalia contests that there is no historically grounded claim for a proportionality requirement, shaping contemporary judicial thinking on punishment.

Conclusions on the Case

• The complexity of the judicial opinions in the Hamelin case highlights the contentious and multifaceted nature of Supreme Court decisions regarding punishment.

• Scalia concludes that a punishment must exhibit both cruelty and unusualness to warrant a ruling of unconstitutionality under the Eighth Amendment.

• This case serves as a vital study for understanding how different judicial philosophies can influence interpretations of constitutional principles concerning punishment and individual rights.