Supreme Court Cases
Solem V. Helm
• Issue:
• Was Helm’s constitutional right of freedom
from cruel and unusual punishment violated?
Solem V. Helm
• Summarizing Facts:
• Jerry helm (respondent) was convicted of 6
non violent felonies. In the state he was in,
because of his history, if he committed
another felony he would be subject to the
maximum for a Class 1 felony. The
punishment for that was life imprisonment
and $25,000 fine without parole.
Solem V. Helm
• Summarizing facts continued…
• The lower courts ruled that because he had 6
prior felonies, his sentence would stand.
• The respondent appealed to governor to
pardon his sentence and it was denied
• Helm then filed a petition of certiori claiming
his sentence violated the 8th amendment.
Solem V. Helm
• Decision:
• The Supreme court ruled in favor of Helm
stating that his 8th amendment rights were
violated.
Solem V. Helm
• Reasoning:
• Majority: “as a matter of principle that a criminal
sentence must be proportionate to the crime for which
defendant has been convicted”
• The Court overturned the sentence on the grounds
that it was "cruel and unusual". Justice Powell wrote
for the five-member majority
• “Finally, we compare the sentence imposed for
commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions”.
“It appears that Helm was treated more severely than
he would have in any other State”.
Solem V. Helm
• Majority continued…
• The language of the opinion, however,
refrained from striking down state statutes
setting minimum sentencing guidelines
for recidivism. The majority opinion only
called for exceptions to the statutes protecting
the constitutional freedom from cruel and
unusual punishment.
Solem V. Helm
• Dissenting:
• The dissenting justices observed that in Rummel
V. Estelle, a life sentence imposed after on a third
non violent felony conviction did not constitute
cruel and unusual punishment.
• Further, the justices “rejected the fiction that all
of Helm’s crimes were innocuous or nonviolent.
Solem V. Helm
• What is your opinion?
Solem V. Helm
• How does this case relate to Equality v.
Discretion?
Harmelin V. Michigan
• Issue:
• Does the 8th amendment of the United States
Constitution contain a proportionality
guarantee with regard to punishment?
• Or
• Were 8th amendment rights violated due to
the punishment not being proportionate to
the crime?
Harmelin V. Michigan
• Facts:
• Petitioner (the party who petitioned the Supreme
Court to review the case) Harmelin was convicted
of possessing 672 grams of cocaine and
sentenced to life in prison without parole. He
claims the punishment is significantly
disproportionate to the crime and violates his 8th
amendment rights.
• Michigan court of appeals heard case and
affirmed his conviction.
• Supreme court granted certiori
Harmelin V. Michigan
• Decision (Majority)
• Original judgement affirmed. The 8th amendment
“does not contain a proportionality agreement”.
• “The majority’s rationale for the above holding is
that if we were to allow such analysis of the
proportionality principle, we would be, in effect,
imposing subjective values as to what is and what is
not proportional based on subjective views….”
Harmelin V. Michigan
• Decision (Majority) continued…
• “The Court states that it is up to the
legislature, and not the judiciary, to make such
determinations”
• (meaning: it is up to how they make or phrase
the law)
Harmelin V. Michigan
• Dissent:
• Argues that this punishment may violate 8th
amendment because “is it contrary to the evolving
standards of decency that mark the progress of a
maturing society”.
• Also, looking back at solem v. helm, they need to
look at 1) harm caused, 2) sentence imposed on
other criminals in same jurisdiction and the
sentences imposed for same crime in other
jurisdictions be used to evaluate whether statute
(law) in question violates 8th amendment.
Harmelin V. Michigan
• Your opinion?
• How does this relate to second basic choice of
equality v. discretion?
U.S. v. Booker
• Issue:
• 1. Whether imposing an enhanced sentence
under the U.S. sentencing guidelines, based
on judicial determination violates the 6th
amendment, and if it does
• 2. Whether the sentencing guidelines are
unconstitutional
U.S. v. Booker
• Facts:
• Booker’s (petitioner) sentence was enhanced (or
made worse/longer) without the jury. It was based
only on the judge’s determination and without
Booker’s consent to a no jury trial.
• In separate cases, according to sentencing guidelines,
defendant could have been given enhanced sentence
, but judge decided not to enhance due to supreme
court case law stating it was violation of 6th
amendment unless facts were presented to jury.
U.S. v. Booker
• Decision (Majority)
• Enhanced sentences that used facts not
presented to jury are a violation of the 6th
amendment right to trial by jury.
• Sentencing act reform was repealed by this
decision.
U.S. v. Booker
• Dissent:
• By repealing the sentencing reform act, it
takes away congressional right to determine
sentencing. This is allowing for courts to
implement different sentences for different
crimes (what is this called?)
U.S v. Booker
• Your opinion?
• How does this relate to equality v. discretion?
• (determinate sentencing – what is it?)