358:, the Court held (5-4) that it was cruel and unusual to deprive a native-born citizen of his U.S. citizenship by reason of his conviction by court-martial for wartime desertion. The Court recognized that the death penalty would have been permissible, yet it said, "But it is equally plain that the existence of the death penalty is not a license to the Government to devise any punishment short of death within the limit of its imagination." The Court held that making Trop stateless was a cruel and unusual punishment because: "The punishment strips the citizen of his status in the national and international political community. His very existence is at the sufferance of the country in which he happens to find himself."
542:
by false pretenses. The Court said that "one could argue without fear of contradiction by any decision of this Court that for crimes concededly classified and classifiable as felonies, that is, as punishable by significant terms of imprisonment in a state penitentiary, the length of the sentence actually imposed is purely a matter of legislative prerogative." Despite its unwillingness to find unconstitutional disproportionality, the Court conceded, "This is not to say that a proportionality principle would not come into play in the extreme example mentioned by the dissent, . . . if a legislature made overtime parking a felony punishable by life imprisonment."
551:, a 5-4 majority set a conviction aside under the Eighth Amendment, because it was disproportionate—a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, imposed under a recidivist statute for successive offenses that included three convictions of third-degree burglary, one of obtaining money by false pretenses, one of grand larceny, one of third-offense driving while intoxicated, and one of writing a "no account" check with intent to defraud. The Court later characterized this decision as "scarcely the expression of clear and well accepted constitutional law."
340:, the Supreme Court held that it was not a cruel and unusual punishment for the Territory of Utah to execute a criminal by shooting him, rather than the more common use of hanging. The Court said that cruel and unusual punishments include "punishments of torture" and cases "where the prisoner was drawn or dragged to the place of execution, in treason; or where he was emboweled alive, beheaded, and quartered, in high treason," as well as "public dissection in murder, and burning alive in treason committed by a female." But execution by shooting was not in the category.
31:
432:(joined by Justices Warren, Black and Brennan) in combination with Douglas's concurring opinion, recognized that drug addiction is a disease, and that it is unconstitutional to impose punishment for having a disease. Justice Stewart wrote that even "one day in prison for the 'crime' of having a common cold," would be cruel and unusual. Additionally, Justice Stewart's opinion, in combination with Justice Harlan's concurring opinion, held that it is unconstitutional to criminalize behavior in the absence of a guilty act, or
560:, the Court examined the historical basis for the Eighth Amendment, found it based on the "cruel and unusual Punishments" provision of the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, and suggested that it is "most unlikely that the English Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause was meant to forbid 'disproportionate' punishments." The judgment of the Court was that life imprisonment without parole for the crime of possession of more than 650 grams of cocaine did not violate the Eighth Amendment.
349:, the Supreme Court held execution by electrocution not to be a cruel and unusual punishment. The Court said that "if the punishment prescribed for an offense against the laws of the State were manifestly cruel and unusual as burning at the stake, crucifixion, breaking on the wheel, or the like, it would be the duty of the courts to adjudge such penalties to be within the constitutional prohibition." But electrocution was not in that category.
586:
may lead. In other words, being under the influence of a drug is itself antisocial behavior. It is not some latent or passive proclivity; it is an active state, voluntarily induced and laden with a present capacity for further injury to society. We think society may use the criminal process to protect itself against that harm. Robinson is not to the contrary.
306:, though Robinson denied admitting this, and also denied being an addict. The police arrested him under California law making it a misdemeanor to "be addicted to the use of narcotics"; Robinson was convicted in the Municipal Court of Los Angeles, and sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment. Robinson appealed his conviction to the Appellate Department of the
448:
the recurring case under the statute where there is ample evidence of use but no evidence of the precise location of use. Beyond this, it has cast serious doubt upon the power of any State to forbid the use of narcotics under threat of criminal punishment." Finally, he said that the Court was using "cruel and unusual punishment" as a disguise of "
509:, the court declined to extend the argument in Robinson to laws prohibiting even homeless people from sleeping in public. In a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas said that Robinson was wrongly decided. In a dissent, three judges argued that "sleep is not a crime" and based on Robinson, it is illegal to criminalize the status of homelessness.
585:
We see no reason why, if a person may constitutionally be punished for using a drug, he may not be punished for being under its `influence,' for realistically the use of a drug offends society's interests precisely because of its baleful influence upon the person and the harm to which that influence
541:
constitute cruel and unusual punishment to impose a life sentence, under a recidivist statute, upon a defendant who had been convicted, successively, of fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $ 80 worth of goods or services, passing a forged check in the amount of $ 28.36, and obtaining $ 120.75
471:
By June 25, 1962, the day the Court handed down this decision, Robinson had been dead for more than ten months. In fact, he was dead before his appeal papers were filed in the
Supreme Court. The California Attorney General's office discovered this fact upon remand and notified the Court, since this
456:
If this case involved economic regulation, the present Court's allergy to substantive due process would surely save the statute and prevent the Court from imposing its own philosophical predilections upon state legislatures or
Congress. I fail to see why the Court deems it more appropriate to write
447:
dissented. He argued, first, that "on this record, it was within the power of the State of
California to confine him by criminal proceedings for the use of narcotics or for regular use amounting to habitual use." Second, the Court "has effectively removed California's power to deal effectively with
580:
it was held that a statute of
California which made it a criminal offense to 'be addicted to the use of narcotics' inflicted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. But Margo "was convicted of being under the influence of a narcotic drug, heroin." Margo's
670: (1962) ("We hold that a state law which imprisons a person thus afflicted as a criminal, even though he has never touched any narcotic drug within the State or been guilty of any irregular behavior there, inflicts a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.").
439:
Justice Clark dissented, first, because "roperly construed, the statute provides a treatment, rather than a punishment." Second, "even if interpreted as penal, the sanction of incarceration for 3 to 12 months is not unreasonable when applied to a person who has voluntarily placed himself in a
317:
California Health and Safety Code § 11721 provided: "No person shall use, or be under the influence of, or be addicted to the use of narcotics, excepting when administered by or under the direction of a person licensed by the State to prescribe and administer narcotics."
375:, the Court considered whether Louisiana could try a second time to electrocute a convicted murderer, after the first attempt failed because of a defect in the State's electric chair. The Court held, 5-4, that re-electrocuting the defendant Francis was not cruel and unusual.
405:, 144 U.S. 323 (1892): "the inhibition was directed not only against punishments which inflict torture, 'but against all punishments which, by their excessive length or severity, are greatly disproportioned to the offenses charged.'". Justices
436:. Justice Stewart's opinion focused on the unconstitutionality of punishing a mere status or condition, Justice Harlan's concurring opinion focused, however, on the unconstitutionality of punishing a "bare desire."
1948:
385:, 217 U.S. 349 (1910), in which a punishment of twelve years in irons at hard and painful labor was imposed for the crime of falsifying public records, the Court held that the penalty was cruel in its
2046:
307:
286:
of the
Constitution was interpreted to prohibit criminalization of particular acts or conduct, as contrasted with prohibiting the use of a particular form of punishment for a crime. In
261:
2041:
2026:
1181:
1079:
1054:
1020:
995:
945:
814:
789:
752:
727:
660:
637:
528:. The Court held that, because of the disproportionality, it was a violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause to impose capital punishment for rape of an adult woman.
275:
109:
72:
702:
457:
into the
Constitution its own abstract notions of how best to handle the narcotics problem, for it obviously cannot match either the States or Congress in expert understanding.
1249:
302:
Robinson was stopped by a police officer who observed "tracks" on
Robinson's arms from heroin use. The officer claimed Robinson admitted that he had occasionally injected
283:
257:
2051:
597:, the defendant was convicted of being "unlawfully under the influence of a narcotic drug." The court affirmed the conviction because it considered the
1240:
2016:
1395:
784:
367:
601:
holding limited to addiction. Salas appealed to the
Supreme Court, but the appeal was dismissed "for want of substantial Federal question."
2036:
311:
279:
35:
476:
decision as moot. Justices Clark, Harlan, and
Stewart dissented, arguing that settled precedent required dismissal for mootness.
173:
2031:
1875:
506:
2021:
1233:
330:
opinion, some Eighth
Amendment decisions addressed whether the method of punishment was cruel and unusual. For example:
2011:
1964:
126:
Punishing a person for a medical condition is a violation of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
965:
1827:
1499:
410:
1980:
1927:
1491:
413:
dissented on the grounds that the Eighth Amendment did not prohibit excessive or disproportionate penalties.
1956:
1352:
1226:
449:
1210:
1939:
1403:
1280:
809:
381:
181:
1910:
1707:
1651:
1531:
1185:
1083:
1058:
1024:
999:
949:
818:
793:
756:
731:
706:
664:
406:
113:
64:
502:
held that it was not criminal to give in to the irresistible compulsions of a "disease" (alcoholism).
1667:
1563:
1555:
1539:
1523:
1368:
1312:
1074:
556:
524:
to cases in which the penalty was considered disproportionate or excessive relative to the crime was
930:, 371 U.S. 905 (1961) (order denying petition for rehearing and abatement of judgment with dissent).
1768:
1723:
1459:
1360:
1320:
489:
1835:
1760:
1715:
1587:
1579:
1507:
1483:
1451:
1419:
1328:
161:
520:
The first case in which the Supreme Court applied the expanded "cruel and unusual" principle of
100:
Appeal from the Appellate Department, Superior Court of California of the County of Los Angeles.
1851:
1843:
1819:
1744:
1635:
1603:
1571:
1467:
1411:
1387:
1344:
1336:
1296:
1015:
697:
533:
336:
157:
709:
1972:
1867:
1752:
1691:
1683:
1611:
1547:
1515:
1475:
1435:
1427:
1192:
990:
1086:
1027:
952:
734:
667:
1811:
1675:
1643:
1627:
1619:
1595:
1443:
1218:
940:
494:
472:
arguably mooted the case long before its decision. The Court, however, did not vacate the
759:
1919:
1859:
1795:
1776:
1699:
1201:
1061:
1002:
821:
796:
747:
429:
400:
354:
345:
185:
2005:
1304:
1049:
722:
547:
1659:
395:
169:
628:. Here, "Brown was convicted of being 'under the influence of' a narcotic drug.'"
67:
444:
193:
141:
428:
A fragmented Court reversed the state's judgment. The main opinion, by Justice
966:"US Supreme Court says cities can punish people for sleeping in public places"
581:
conviction was not for addiction, as was Robinson's. The court then declared:
433:
149:
83:
290:, the Court struck down a California law that criminalized being addicted to
303:
291:
79:
612:) refused to hold the state without power to criminalize drug use. It said
417:
may have been the earliest "disproportionality" Eighth Amendment holding.
247:
Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
1949:
Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.
498:, despite the argument advanced by some members of the Court that
681:
Nor Cruel and Unusual Punishments Inflicted: The Original Meaning
1898:
1261:
1222:
30:
210:
Stewart, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan
590:
The court therefore unanimously affirmed the conviction.
310:, which upheld his conviction. He then appealed to the
572:, the Supreme Court of New Jersey first distinguished
2047:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court
638:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 370
1938:
1909:
1787:
1734:
1379:
1272:
251:
238:
230:
222:
214:
206:
201:
130:
120:
104:
96:
91:
59:
49:
42:
23:
440:condition posing a serious threat to the State."
488:decision, the Court upheld a law criminalizing
1234:
8:
2042:United States controlled substances case law
2027:Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause case law
393:, its disproportionality). The Court quoted
913:
911:
1906:
1895:
1269:
1258:
1241:
1227:
1219:
20:
649:
361:The last in this line of cases before
1396:Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber
1128:365 S.W.2d 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1963)
785:Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber
18:1962 United States Supreme Court case
7:
1159:103 Ariz. 289, 440 P.2d 909 (1968) (
513:"Disproportionality" cases based on
274:, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), is the first
679:See generally Anthony F. Granucci,
312:Supreme Court of the United States
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
2052:United States Supreme Court cases
1188:660 (1962) is available from:
322:Previous Eighth Amendment rulings
308:Los Angeles County Superior Court
1110:40 N.J. 188, 191 A.2d 43 (1963).
29:
1119:40 N.J. at 190, 191 A.2d at 45.
399:by Justice Field in dissent in
2017:1962 in United States case law
1876:City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
1250:United States Eighth Amendment
616:applied only to criminalizing
507:City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
389:and unusual in its character (
1:
608:, the Arizona Supreme Court (
537:, the Court held that it did
1263:Cruel and unusual punishment
480:Later cases in Supreme Court
2037:Legal history of California
1965:United States v. Bajakajian
564:Later cases in lower courts
280:United States Supreme Court
2068:
337:Wilkerson v. State of Utah
1905:
1894:
1828:South Carolina v. Gathers
1500:Skipper v. South Carolina
1268:
1257:
869:370 U.S. at 664, 678–679.
626:being under the influence
256:
246:
135:
125:
28:
1981:Tyler v. Hennepin County
1928:United States v. Salerno
1900:Excessive bail and fines
421:Supreme Court ruling in
258:U.S. Const. amends. VIII
1957:Austin v. United States
1492:Caldwell v. Mississippi
1353:Montgomery v. Louisiana
1148:sub nom. Salas v. Texas
1039:445 U.S. at 274, n. 11.
462:Subsequent developments
450:substantive due process
2032:Incorporation case law
1940:Excessive Fines Clause
1804:Robinson v. California
1420:California v. Anderson
1404:McGautha v. California
1289:Robinson v. California
1281:Weems v. United States
1178:Robinson v. California
928:Robinson v. California
810:Weems v. United States
657:Robinson v. California
588:
459:
382:Weems v. United States
271:Robinson v. California
182:William J. Brennan Jr.
54:Robinson v. California
24:Robinson v. California
1911:Excessive Bail Clause
1652:Panetti v. Quarterman
1532:Maynard v. Cartwright
1150:, 375 U.S. 15 (1963),
848:, 370 U.S. at 667–676
583:
466:
454:
45:Decided June 25, 1962
43:Argued April 17, 1962
2022:Crime in Los Angeles
1668:Kennedy v. Louisiana
1564:Whitmore v. Arkansas
1556:Stanford v. Kentucky
1540:Thompson v. Oklahoma
1524:Lowenfield v. Phelps
1369:Jones v. Mississippi
1313:Harmelin v. Michigan
1075:Harmelin v. Michigan
887:370 U.S. at 678–679.
878:370 U.S. at 666–667.
557:Harmelin v. Michigan
1844:Helling v. McKinney
1769:Hudson v. McMillian
1735:Corporal punishment
1724:Bucklew v. Precythe
1460:Spaziano v. Florida
1361:Virginia v. LeBlanc
1321:Ewing v. California
1211:Library of Congress
368:Francis v. Resweber
2012:1962 in California
1836:Payne v. Tennessee
1761:Ingraham v. Wright
1716:Madison v. Alabama
1588:Atkins v. Virginia
1580:Herrera v. Collins
1508:Ford v. Wainwright
1484:Glass v. Louisiana
1452:Godfrey v. Georgia
1329:Lockyer v. Andrade
1137:365 S.W.2d at 175.
1101:, 501 U.S. at 975.
860:, 370 U.S. at 667.
836:, 217 U.S. at 371.
774:, 356 U.S. at 101.
490:public drunkenness
162:William O. Douglas
146:Associate Justices
108:Rehearing denied,
78:82 S. Ct. 1417; 8
1999:
1998:
1995:
1994:
1991:
1990:
1890:
1889:
1886:
1885:
1852:Farmer v. Brennan
1820:Estelle v. Gamble
1745:Jackson v. Bishop
1636:Hill v. McDonough
1604:Tennard v. Dretke
1572:Walton v. Arizona
1468:Enmund v. Florida
1412:Furman v. Georgia
1388:Wilkerson v. Utah
1345:Miller v. Alabama
1337:Graham v. Florida
1297:Rummel v. Estelle
1146:Appeal dismissed
1016:Rummel v. Estelle
698:Wilkerson v. Utah
534:Rummel v. Estelle
402:O'Neil v. Vermont
267:
266:
174:John M. Harlan II
158:Felix Frankfurter
2059:
1973:Timbs v. Indiana
1907:
1896:
1868:Kahler v. Kansas
1753:Gates v. Collier
1692:Hurst v. Florida
1684:Glossip v. Gross
1612:Roper v. Simmons
1548:Penry v. Lynaugh
1516:Tison v. Arizona
1476:Pulley v. Harris
1436:Coker v. Georgia
1428:Gregg v. Georgia
1270:
1259:
1243:
1236:
1229:
1220:
1215:
1209:
1206:
1200:
1197:
1191:
1164:
1157:
1151:
1144:
1138:
1135:
1129:
1126:
1120:
1117:
1111:
1108:
1102:
1096:
1090:
1071:
1065:
1046:
1040:
1037:
1031:
1012:
1006:
991:Coker v. Georgia
987:
981:
980:
978:
976:
962:
956:
937:
931:
924:
918:
917:370 U.S. at 689.
915:
906:
905:370 U.S. at 688.
903:
897:
896:370 U.S. at 685.
894:
888:
885:
879:
876:
870:
867:
861:
855:
849:
843:
837:
831:
825:
806:
800:
781:
775:
769:
763:
744:
738:
719:
713:
694:
688:
686:
677:
671:
654:
576:by stating, "In
526:Coker v. Georgia
467:Robinson's death
284:Eighth Amendment
278:decision of the
131:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
2067:
2066:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1987:
1934:
1901:
1882:
1812:Powell v. Texas
1783:
1756:(5th Cir. 1974)
1748:(8th Cir. 1968)
1736:
1730:
1676:Hall v. Florida
1644:Kansas v. Marsh
1628:Oregon v. Guzek
1623:(5th Cir. 2005)
1620:Bigby v. Dretke
1596:Ring v. Arizona
1444:Lockett v. Ohio
1375:
1264:
1253:
1247:
1213:
1207:
1204:
1198:
1195:
1189:
1173:
1168:
1167:
1158:
1154:
1145:
1141:
1136:
1132:
1127:
1123:
1118:
1114:
1109:
1105:
1097:
1093:
1072:
1068:
1047:
1043:
1038:
1034:
1013:
1009:
988:
984:
974:
972:
964:
963:
959:
941:Powell v. Texas
938:
934:
925:
921:
916:
909:
904:
900:
895:
891:
886:
882:
877:
873:
868:
864:
856:
852:
844:
840:
832:
828:
807:
803:
782:
778:
770:
766:
745:
741:
720:
716:
695:
691:
684:
678:
674:
655:
651:
646:
634:
566:
518:
495:Powell v. Texas
482:
469:
464:
426:
324:
300:
184:
172:
160:
116:905 (1962).
87:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
2065:
2063:
2055:
2054:
2049:
2044:
2039:
2034:
2029:
2024:
2019:
2014:
2004:
2003:
1997:
1996:
1993:
1992:
1989:
1988:
1986:
1985:
1977:
1969:
1961:
1953:
1944:
1942:
1936:
1935:
1933:
1932:
1924:
1920:Stack v. Boyle
1915:
1913:
1903:
1902:
1899:
1892:
1891:
1888:
1887:
1884:
1883:
1881:
1880:
1872:
1864:
1860:Brown v. Plata
1856:
1848:
1840:
1832:
1824:
1816:
1808:
1800:
1796:Trop v. Dulles
1791:
1789:
1785:
1784:
1782:
1781:
1777:Hope v. Pelzer
1773:
1765:
1757:
1749:
1740:
1738:
1732:
1731:
1729:
1728:
1720:
1712:
1708:Moore v. Texas
1704:
1700:Kansas v. Carr
1696:
1688:
1680:
1672:
1664:
1656:
1648:
1640:
1632:
1624:
1616:
1608:
1600:
1592:
1584:
1576:
1568:
1560:
1552:
1544:
1536:
1528:
1520:
1512:
1504:
1496:
1488:
1480:
1472:
1464:
1456:
1448:
1440:
1432:
1424:
1416:
1408:
1400:
1392:
1383:
1381:
1377:
1376:
1374:
1373:
1365:
1357:
1349:
1341:
1333:
1325:
1317:
1309:
1301:
1293:
1285:
1276:
1274:
1266:
1265:
1262:
1255:
1254:
1248:
1246:
1245:
1238:
1231:
1223:
1217:
1216:
1172:
1171:External links
1169:
1166:
1165:
1152:
1139:
1130:
1121:
1112:
1103:
1091:
1066:
1041:
1032:
1030: (1980). .
1007:
982:
957:
932:
919:
907:
898:
889:
880:
871:
862:
850:
838:
826:
801:
776:
764:
748:Trop v. Dulles
739:
714:
689:
672:
648:
647:
645:
642:
641:
640:
633:
630:
606:State v. Brown
595:Salas v. State
570:State v. Margo
565:
562:
517:
511:
484:Following the
481:
478:
468:
465:
463:
460:
430:Potter Stewart
425:
419:
377:
376:
359:
355:Trop v. Dulles
350:
341:
323:
320:
299:
296:
265:
264:
254:
253:
249:
248:
244:
243:
240:
236:
235:
232:
228:
227:
224:
220:
219:
216:
212:
211:
208:
204:
203:
199:
198:
197:
196:
186:Potter Stewart
147:
144:
139:
133:
132:
128:
127:
123:
122:
118:
117:
106:
102:
101:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2064:
2053:
2050:
2048:
2045:
2043:
2040:
2038:
2035:
2033:
2030:
2028:
2025:
2023:
2020:
2018:
2015:
2013:
2010:
2009:
2007:
1983:
1982:
1978:
1975:
1974:
1970:
1967:
1966:
1962:
1959:
1958:
1954:
1951:
1950:
1946:
1945:
1943:
1941:
1937:
1930:
1929:
1925:
1922:
1921:
1917:
1916:
1914:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1897:
1893:
1878:
1877:
1873:
1870:
1869:
1865:
1862:
1861:
1857:
1854:
1853:
1849:
1846:
1845:
1841:
1838:
1837:
1833:
1830:
1829:
1825:
1822:
1821:
1817:
1814:
1813:
1809:
1806:
1805:
1801:
1798:
1797:
1793:
1792:
1790:
1786:
1779:
1778:
1774:
1771:
1770:
1766:
1763:
1762:
1758:
1755:
1754:
1750:
1747:
1746:
1742:
1741:
1739:
1733:
1726:
1725:
1721:
1718:
1717:
1713:
1710:
1709:
1705:
1702:
1701:
1697:
1694:
1693:
1689:
1686:
1685:
1681:
1678:
1677:
1673:
1670:
1669:
1665:
1662:
1661:
1657:
1654:
1653:
1649:
1646:
1645:
1641:
1638:
1637:
1633:
1630:
1629:
1625:
1622:
1621:
1617:
1614:
1613:
1609:
1606:
1605:
1601:
1598:
1597:
1593:
1590:
1589:
1585:
1582:
1581:
1577:
1574:
1573:
1569:
1566:
1565:
1561:
1558:
1557:
1553:
1550:
1549:
1545:
1542:
1541:
1537:
1534:
1533:
1529:
1526:
1525:
1521:
1518:
1517:
1513:
1510:
1509:
1505:
1502:
1501:
1497:
1494:
1493:
1489:
1486:
1485:
1481:
1478:
1477:
1473:
1470:
1469:
1465:
1462:
1461:
1457:
1454:
1453:
1449:
1446:
1445:
1441:
1438:
1437:
1433:
1430:
1429:
1425:
1422:
1421:
1417:
1414:
1413:
1409:
1406:
1405:
1401:
1398:
1397:
1393:
1390:
1389:
1385:
1384:
1382:
1380:Death penalty
1378:
1371:
1370:
1366:
1363:
1362:
1358:
1355:
1354:
1350:
1347:
1346:
1342:
1339:
1338:
1334:
1331:
1330:
1326:
1323:
1322:
1318:
1315:
1314:
1310:
1307:
1306:
1305:Solem v. Helm
1302:
1299:
1298:
1294:
1291:
1290:
1286:
1283:
1282:
1278:
1277:
1275:
1273:Incarceration
1271:
1267:
1260:
1256:
1251:
1244:
1239:
1237:
1232:
1230:
1225:
1224:
1221:
1212:
1203:
1194:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1174:
1170:
1162:
1156:
1153:
1149:
1143:
1140:
1134:
1131:
1125:
1122:
1116:
1113:
1107:
1104:
1100:
1095:
1092:
1088:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1076:
1070:
1067:
1063:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1051:
1050:Solem v. Helm
1045:
1042:
1036:
1033:
1029:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1017:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1001:
997:
993:
992:
986:
983:
971:
967:
961:
958:
954:
951:
947:
943:
942:
936:
933:
929:
923:
920:
914:
912:
908:
902:
899:
893:
890:
884:
881:
875:
872:
866:
863:
859:
854:
851:
847:
842:
839:
835:
830:
827:
823:
820:
816:
812:
811:
805:
802:
798:
795:
791:
787:
786:
780:
777:
773:
768:
765:
761:
758:
754:
750:
749:
743:
740:
736:
733:
729:
725:
724:
723:In re Kemmler
718:
715:
711:
708:
704:
700:
699:
693:
690:
682:
676:
673:
669:
666:
662:
658:
653:
650:
643:
639:
636:
635:
631:
629:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
602:
600:
596:
591:
587:
582:
579:
575:
571:
563:
561:
559:
558:
552:
550:
549:
548:Solem v. Helm
543:
540:
536:
535:
529:
527:
523:
516:
512:
510:
508:
503:
501:
497:
496:
491:
487:
479:
477:
475:
461:
458:
453:
451:
446:
441:
437:
435:
431:
424:
420:
418:
416:
412:
408:
404:
403:
398:
397:
392:
388:
387:excessiveness
384:
383:
374:
370:
369:
364:
360:
357:
356:
351:
348:
347:
346:In re Kemmler
342:
339:
338:
333:
332:
331:
329:
321:
319:
315:
313:
309:
305:
297:
295:
293:
289:
285:
282:in which the
281:
277:
273:
272:
263:
259:
255:
250:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:Case opinions
200:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
148:
145:
143:
140:
138:Chief Justice
137:
136:
134:
129:
124:
119:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
90:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
1979:
1971:
1963:
1955:
1947:
1926:
1918:
1874:
1866:
1858:
1850:
1842:
1834:
1826:
1818:
1810:
1803:
1802:
1794:
1775:
1767:
1759:
1751:
1743:
1722:
1714:
1706:
1698:
1690:
1682:
1674:
1666:
1660:Baze v. Rees
1658:
1650:
1642:
1634:
1626:
1618:
1610:
1602:
1594:
1586:
1578:
1570:
1562:
1554:
1546:
1538:
1530:
1522:
1514:
1506:
1498:
1490:
1482:
1474:
1466:
1463:(1981, 1984)
1458:
1450:
1442:
1434:
1426:
1418:
1410:
1402:
1394:
1386:
1367:
1359:
1351:
1343:
1335:
1327:
1319:
1311:
1303:
1295:
1288:
1287:
1279:
1177:
1160:
1155:
1147:
1142:
1133:
1124:
1115:
1106:
1098:
1094:
1089: (1991).
1073:
1069:
1064: (1983).
1048:
1044:
1035:
1014:
1010:
1005: (1977).
989:
985:
973:. Retrieved
969:
960:
955: (1968).
939:
935:
927:
922:
901:
892:
883:
874:
865:
857:
853:
845:
841:
833:
829:
824: (1910).
808:
804:
799: (1947).
783:
779:
771:
767:
762: (1958).
746:
742:
737: (1890).
721:
717:
712: (1878).
696:
692:
685:Cal. L. Rev.
680:
675:
656:
652:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
605:
603:
598:
594:
592:
589:
584:
577:
573:
569:
567:
555:
553:
546:
544:
538:
532:
530:
525:
521:
519:
514:
504:
499:
493:
485:
483:
473:
470:
455:
442:
438:
427:
422:
414:
401:
396:obiter dicta
394:
390:
386:
380:
379:However, in
378:
372:
366:
362:
353:
344:
335:
327:
325:
316:
301:
287:
270:
269:
268:
252:Laws applied
189:
177:
170:Tom C. Clark
165:
153:
92:Case history
71:
53:
15:
1737:or injuries
1423:(Cal. 1972)
710:130, 135-36
687:839 (1969).
445:Byron White
223:Concurrence
215:Concurrence
194:Byron White
142:Earl Warren
2006:Categories
644:References
434:actus reus
326:Until the
298:Background
150:Hugo Black
105:Subsequent
84:U.S. LEXIS
82:758; 1962
618:addiction
304:narcotics
292:narcotics
80:L. Ed. 2d
60:Citations
1252:case law
1176:Text of
1099:Harmelin
1087:957, 965
1028:263, 274
975:June 28,
953:514, 517
858:Robinson
846:Robinson
735:436, 446
668:660, 667
632:See also
614:Robinson
599:Robinson
578:Robinson
574:Robinson
522:Robinson
515:Robinson
500:Robinson
486:Robinson
474:Robinson
443:Justice
423:Robinson
363:Robinson
328:Robinson
288:Robinson
276:landmark
207:Majority
1193:Findlaw
1161:en banc
610:en banc
373:Francis
239:Dissent
231:Dissent
218:Douglas
121:Holding
1984:(2023)
1976:(2019)
1968:(1998)
1960:(1993)
1952:(1989)
1931:(1987)
1923:(1951)
1879:(2024)
1871:(2020)
1863:(2011)
1855:(1994)
1847:(1993)
1839:(1991)
1831:(1989)
1823:(1976)
1815:(1968)
1807:(1962)
1799:(1958)
1780:(2002)
1772:(1992)
1764:(1977)
1727:(2019)
1719:(2019)
1711:(2017)
1703:(2016)
1695:(2016)
1687:(2015)
1679:(2014)
1671:(2008)
1663:(2008)
1655:(2007)
1647:(2006)
1639:(2006)
1631:(2006)
1615:(2005)
1607:(2004)
1599:(2002)
1591:(2002)
1583:(1993)
1575:(1990)
1567:(1990)
1559:(1989)
1551:(1989)
1543:(1988)
1535:(1988)
1527:(1988)
1519:(1987)
1511:(1986)
1503:(1986)
1495:(1985)
1487:(1985)
1479:(1984)
1471:(1982)
1455:(1980)
1447:(1978)
1439:(1977)
1431:(1976)
1415:(1972)
1407:(1971)
1399:(1947)
1391:(1879)
1372:(2021)
1364:(2017)
1356:(2016)
1348:(2012)
1340:(2010)
1332:(2003)
1324:(2003)
1316:(1991)
1308:(1983)
1300:(1980)
1292:(1962)
1284:(1910)
1214:
1208:
1205:
1202:Justia
1199:
1196:
1190:
1078:,
1053:,
1019:,
994:,
944:,
813:,
788:,
760:86, 99
751:,
726:,
701:,
659:,
620:, not
492:under
411:Holmes
226:Harlan
192:
190:·
188:
180:
178:·
176:
168:
166:·
164:
156:
154:·
152:
1788:Other
1184:
1082:
1057:
1023:
998:
948:
834:Weems
817:
792:
755:
730:
705:
683:, 57
663:
415:Weems
407:White
371:. In
242:White
234:Clark
112:
97:Prior
1186:U.S.
1084:U.S.
1059:U.S.
1025:U.S.
1000:U.S.
977:2024
950:U.S.
926:See
819:U.S.
794:U.S.
772:Trop
757:U.S.
732:U.S.
707:U.S.
665:U.S.
409:and
391:i.e.
365:was
114:U.S.
73:more
65:U.S.
63:370
1182:370
1080:501
1062:277
1055:463
1021:445
1003:584
996:433
970:opb
946:392
822:349
815:217
797:459
790:329
753:356
728:136
661:370
624:or
622:use
604:In
593:In
568:In
554:In
545:In
539:not
531:In
505:In
452:":
352:In
343:In
334:In
262:XIV
110:371
86:850
68:660
2008::
1180:,
1163:).
968:.
910:^
703:99
314:.
294:.
260:,
1242:e
1235:t
1228:v
979:.
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.