The Bill Of Rights are the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. They became part of the Constitution on
December 15, 1791. The purpose of Bill of Rights was to serve as the building block of basic American freedoms. Its laws specify the fundamental rights and most valuable liberties of the American people and protect them from popular majority opinions and abuse from government officials (Carey ). One of the most notable amendments of the Bill of rights that embodies the protection of the American citizens is the Eighth Amendment. “
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” (
Kelly) . Throughout the years the Supreme Court was forced to decide on whether the application of the Eighth Amendment is sustainable in situations that are questionable under the U.S Constitution.
William Henry Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He attempted to flee, and in doing so tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went off and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. He appealed his case, and raised the question of whether carrying out the death penalty in this case considered cruel and unusual punishment which would be in violation of the eighth and fourteenth amendment. The court ruled in a five- four decision for
Furman, confirming that his punishment was in violation of the eighth amendment, (Furman v. Georgia ). · The decision of this case did not outlaw the death penalty; this case established that death penalty laws that allow random, racial results are unconstitutional. The new laws created after Furman, required a two-phase system for death penalty cases, to give guidance juries to apply the death penalty fairly.
In the first phase, the jury decides if the defendant is guilty of murder. In the second phase, the jury hears new evidence to decide if the defendant deserves the death penalty. This case
James Ingraham and Roosevelt Andrews were enrolled in the Charles R. Drew middle school in 1977. Ingraham and Andrews claimed that they had been paddled in school many times with force. They claimed that paddling was a violation of their rights under the
Eighth Amendment because it was excessive and also in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because they were not given the opportunity to be heard before the punishment. The defendants in the case were Principal Willie J Wright and others. The case was brought to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida; the court dismissed all three counts before even hearing the evidence. The case was then brought to the court of appeals which voted on the grounds that the punishment was “severe and oppressive” and violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, ( Ingraham v.
Wright ). The district court and court of appeals came to different rulings, because the incident took place within a school, and like the first amendment, some of the rights granted may differ for school settings.
In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court concluded that public school students could be paddled without first receiving a hearing. Corporal punishment is allowed in school and is limited by common law. At the Federal level, they have see-no-evil, speak-no-evil policy. They said that since it was regulated to the level of common law they explain issue of school corporal punishment can only be dealt with at state and local levels, (Corkill) .
In 1992, Keith Hudson was an inmate of a Louisiana prison, who claimed that he was beaten by, two prison guards, while their supervisor watched. Hudson sued the guards in Federal District Court. Hudson argued that they had violated his Eighth Amendment right to “be free from cruel and unusual punishment”. The District Court ruled that the guards had used force when there was no need, which violated the Eighth Amendment. When the case was brought to The Court of Appeals they explained that the inmate must demonstrate
"significant injury" when they claim that their Eighth Amendment Right has been violated. When the case was brought to the Supreme
Court, they were to decide, if an inmate claiming that their Eighth Amendment Right has been violated by the excessive use of force, show significant injury to have a claim? The court held, with a seven to two decision, Keith Hudson’s Eighth Amendment Right had been violated. The court had to consider whether the punishment was malicious and sadistic. The court came to the conclusion, that an inmate having no significant injury alone does not mean their rights have not been violated, ( Hudson v. McMillian ).
The case of Ingraham v. Wright and Hudson v. McMillian, both display the way in which the Eighth Amendment is applied in different settings. In the case of Ingraham v. Wright one of the Supreme Court Justices, Justice Powell noted that he was unable to find any case laws outside the criminal process where the Court has ruled the Eighth Amendment to be applicable, Powell acknowledged that the Court has on several occasions stated that the meaning of the cruel and unusual punishment clause may evolve "as public opinion becomes enlightened by a humane justice" but, he also cautioned that any evolution should not take the Eighth Amendment beyond criminal punishment . Powell then concluded that the schoolchild “has little need for the protection of the Eighth Amendment." But in contrast, in Hudson v. McMillian the court relied on the belief of the “Living Constitution” to make the decision. The justices ruled based on the “evolving standards of decency.”The Court’s rulings in Eighth Amendment cases, such as this one, have expanded the meaning of the Eighth Amendment to the point that the words “cruel and unusual” mean whatever happens to offend a majority of the justices, (Hudson v. McMillian )
At the age of 15 years, in 1988, Wayne Thompson was tried as an adult, convicted of first degree murder, and sentenced to death. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma affirmed. The Supreme Court granted Thompson certiorari, ( Ganta ). Due to the defendant’s young age, this case created controversy, questioning if the execution of a fifteen year old is in violation of the eighth amendment. With a ruling of five to three, the court voted in favor of Thompson, deciding that his Eighth Amendment Right would be violated if he were to be executed, ( Ganta ).

Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death in 1993, when he was 17. He appealed to state and federal courts until 2002, but each appeal was rejected. In 2002, the Missouri Supreme Court stopped Simmons’s execution while the U.S. Supreme Court decided Atkins v. Virginia, which was a case that dealt with the execution of the mentally ill. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that executing the mentally ill violated the Eighth and 14th Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment, the Missouri Supreme Court reconsiders his case.
Using the Atkins case as precedent, the Missouri court decided that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 1989 in Stanford v. Kentucky, which held that executing minors was not unconstitutional, was no longer valid. The court was now required to consider whether the execution of minors violated the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" found in the Eighth Amendment and applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment? In a five to four opinion the court ruled that standards of decency have evolved so that executing minors is "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, ( Roper v. Simmons ).
In the case of Thompson v. Oklahoma, the court held the execution of a 15 year old violated the 8th Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishments and was unconstitutional. The Court held that the execution of anyone under the age of 16 was unconstitutional. Stated in the majority opinion, the justices explain they must “first review relevant legislative enactments, then refer to jury determinations, and finally explain why these indicators of contemporary standards of decency confirm our judgment that such a young person is not capable of acting with the degree of culpability that can justify the ultimate penalty,” (
Ganta ). A few years later
Roper v. Simmons re-established that the executing of minors was unconstitutional that standards of decency have evolved so that executing minors is "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, ( Roper v. Simmons ). Both of the cases deal with the constitutionality of executing a minor, and due to these cases the Supreme Court has found that executing a person under the age of sixteen is in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The Eighth Amendment was intended to protect those convicted of crimes from harsh punishments considered to be “cruel and unusual”. Over time, the cases brought to the attention of the Supreme Court Justices, have set precedents that revolve around the
“Living Constitution,” and the “evolving standards of decency,” In Furman v. Georgia, the decision of the case set the foundation for the procedures of all death penalty trials, which resulted in a fair judgment for those who are convicted of crimes that are considered to be punishable by death. Ingraham v. Wright and Hudson v. McMillian were ca s es that illustrated how the application of Eighth
Amendment can differ in different settings. In Ingraham v. Wright, the rights granted in the Eighth Amendment, were restricted because this amendment was intended to protect those convicted of crimes, and not necessarily to protect those within a school setting. In comparison Hudson v. McMillian, re-established the fact that the purpose the Eighth Amendment was intended to protect those within the criminal system. In Both Thompson v. Oklahoma and Roper v. Simmons the Supreme Court ruled executing minors “would go against the evolving standards of decency.” Over all the cases involving the infringement of ones Eighth Amendment, are able to either restrict or expand what is considered to be “cruel and unusual punishment.”