Jakeila Spruill
Preparing a Legal Brief
Cruel and Unusual Punishments:
The Supreme Court has the highest authority of them all and makes all final decisions.
They use old court decisions to determine the future ones. The Supreme Court has executed
those who have committed certain crimes but overtime they found that some decisions are
unconstitutional. The eighth amendment prohibits the federal government from imposing cruel
and unusual punishments, excessive bail and excessive fines. The eighth amendment was taken
from the Bill of Rights in 1791. Throughout the Supreme Court, they were forced to make
decisions involving the death penalty and whether it was constitutional or not. Death penalty
decisions is up to the states but now it is unconstitutional to execute someone if their minor or if
they are identified as mental. Over the years, death penalty has been a harsh consequence for
those who commit crimes. Supreme Court and states have always been very indecisive when it
comes to determining who gets executed and what crimes are necessary for it. The cases I will be
discussing will show how the supreme court reach their final decisions and how these cases help
determine the decision on future ones.
Thompson v Oklahoma in 1988 was one of the first cases when the Supreme Court
prohibited minors from being executed under the eighth amendment “cruel and unusual
punishment.” 15-year-old Thompson was convicted of first-degree murder found guilty and was
sentenced to death because he was tried as an adult. The court of criminal appeals of Oklahoma
affirmed. The Supreme Court then questioned whether executing a 15 year old would violate the
eighth amendment and the answer is yes. In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that “cruel
and unusual punishments” applied to states through the fourteenth amendment. They concluded
that executing a person under the age of 16 was unconstitutional. In making their decision, they
explained that this act would violate “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a
maturing society.” This quote explains that time evolves and that our standards evolve. In order
to make progress we have to make choices that match with the time difference. This court is very
important because it was the first case that prohibited minors from being executed and it set a
precedent that the future ones had to follow.
Harmelin v Michigan in 1991. In this case, Ronald Harmelin was sentenced to life in prison
without the possibility of parole. Harmelin was caught with over 650 grams of cocaine; he then
reported his case as “cruel and unusual punishment” because he has no previous felony cases and
it was unequal to the crime he has committed. The Supreme Court questioned whether his
sentence was a violation of the cruel and unusual punishments because they did not consider the
other factors of his case. In a 5-4 court decision, the Supreme Court ruled that sentencing
Harmelin with life without parole was not cruel and unusual punishment. “The cruel and
unusual punishment protects unusual methods of punishment, not necessarily cruel ones. As
such, while Hamelin’s life sentence may have been cruel, it was not constitutionally unusual or
unprecedented.” This quote proved that Harmelin was not protected in this case because his
punishment was not unusual. This case was very important because this allowed states to impose
a life sentence with parole.
Hudson v McMillian in 1992. Keith Hudson was a Louisiana inmate and was beaten by two
prison guards Marvin Woods and Jack McMillian while their supervisor Arthur Mezo witnessed.
Keith Hudson then sued the guards in Federal district courts because this violated his eighth
amendment; the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment .However, It was then
realized that an inmate must prove “significant injury” when they feel their eighth amendment
right has been violated. The Supreme Court questioned whether the inmate must demonstrate
“significant injury” just to prevail his claim and the answer is no. In a 6-3 decision, the court
ruled that an injury suffered by an inmate is an important factor, but just because there was not a
significant injury does not mean his rights were not violated, does not matter the condition of the
injury but whether the rights were violated; they should have considered other things. “This is
true whether significant injury is evident. Otherwise, the eighth amendment would permit any
physical punishment, no matter how diabolic or inhuman, inflicting less than some arbitrary
quantity of injury. “This case proved that even though the inmate didn’t suffer any serious injury
his right can still be violated.
Atkins v Virginia in 2002. Daryl Renard Atkins was convicted of abduction of Eric Nesbitt,
armed robbery, and capital murder. This crime led to Atkins being sentenced to death. During his
case, a forensic psychologist testified that Atkins is mentally retarded, and that he could not be
sentenced to death because of his condition. The Supreme Court questioned if executing some
who is mentally retarded unconstitutional because of the eighth amendment. In a 6-3decision the
court ruled that you cannot execute mentally retarded criminals because it is considered cruel and
unusual punishment. After this case, the Supreme Court realized there was a concern with the
death penalty; this case determined that it would be unfair to execute certain individuals because
of their condition. “Evolving standards of decency, we therefore conclude that such punishment
is excessive and that the constitution places a substantive restriction.” This quote proves the
restriction on executing mentally retarded criminals, and because time evolves, our standards
must change.
Roper v Simmons in 2005. Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death in 1993 when he
was only 17, because the Supreme Court uses previous court decisions to determine the future
ones the Missouri Supreme Court reconsidered Simmons case because of the Atkins v Virginia
case. They were now opposed to the execution of minors and found it was unconstitutional. The
Supreme Court questioned if the execution of minors was cruel and unusual punishment and did
it apply to the states through the 14th amendment. In a 5-4, decision the court ruled that because
of the standards of decency have evolved its unconstitutional to execute minors. They also found
that the death penalty is “disproportionate punishment” for minors. “State courts could just as
easily decide that executions prohibited by the Supreme Court were now permissible due to a
change in the beliefs of the American people.” This case brought out a point that they could not
allow a state court to overturn a Supreme Court by using evolving standards because it would be
dangerous.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court has the highest authority and they make the final decisions.
Cruel and unusual punishment has always been a serious concern and whether it is
unconstitutional or not. When a decision is made in the eyes of the government, they must live
up to their previous decisions because of evolving standards. Over time individuals rights has
expanded when it comes to execution.





Thompson v Oklahoma. No. 81-6169. Supreme court of the United States. 29 June 1988.
U.S Supreme court media Oyez. Www.oyez.com. 29 March 2013.
Harmelin v Michigan. No. 89-7272. Supreme Court of the United States. 27 Jude 1991.
US Supreme Court media. Oyez. www.oyez.com. 29 March 2013
Hudson v McMillian. No 90-6531. Supreme court of the United States. 25 February
1992. US Supreme court media oyez. www.oyez.org. 29 March 2013
Atkins v Virginia. No 00-8452. Supreme court of the United States. 20 June 2002. US
Supreme court media oyez. www.oyez.org. 29 march 2013
Roper v Simmons. 03-633. Supreme court of the United states. 1 March 2005. US
Supreme Court media oyez. www.oyez.org. 29 March 2013