NCJ Number
74488
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 71 Issue: 4 Dated: (Winter 1980) Pages: 378-420
Date Published
1980
Length
43 pages
Annotation
Focusing on Rummel v. Estelle, this article reviews the original meaning of the eighth amendment and its development in the Supreme Court, and in lower Federal and State courts.
Abstract
In Rummel v. Estelle the Supreme Court upheld a life sentence imposed under a Texas habitual criminal statute which mandates a life sentence upon conviction of a third felony. In Rummel, the petitioner argued that the application of this statute to his three felony convictions (three thefts totaling $220.11) amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court's rejection of Rummel's eighth amendment argument is fundamentally sound and the cost of full review of the length of prison sentences far outweighs the 'compelling' nature of cases such as Rummel. The eighth amendment is seen as a misinterpretation of the English meaning of cruel and unusual punishments which were actually those unauthorized by statute and outside the jurisdiction of the sentencing court. A review of habitual criminal cases makes it clear that unlike the death penalty, the Supreme Court has shown no special solicitude of the eighth amendment argument. An examination of several early 'disproportionality' cases demonstrates that factors other than the proportionality argument influenced these cases. However, a handful of States, Michigan, South Carolina, California, Kentucky, have accepted the proportionality argument and have actually found prison terms excessively long. The Supreme Court opinion apparently rejected the conceptual framework developed in Hart v. Coiner that the presence or absence of violence is an objective standard upon which to base a proportionality determination. Other questions raised by Rummel and related to proportionality analysis include the special social interest exception and its potential to spur a flood of litigation cases. An 'as applied' attack, and maximum sentence and parole arguments are also implicated, as is judicial restraint. Over 525 footnotes are appended.