How 'cruel and unusual punishment' and 'excessive fines' clauses apply to Tennessee
Editor's note: This is a regular feature on issues related to the Constitution and civics education written by Paul G. Summers, retired judge and state attorney general.
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law in America. Amendments are part of the Constitution. The first 10 Amendments, or Bill of Rights, were ratified in 1789.
Amendment VIII states:
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution bars the federalgovernment from imposing excessive bail and fines and prohibits the inflicting of cruel and unusual punishments.
It is part of the original Bill of Rights. As with many provisions of the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court determines through litigation what is “excessive, cruel and unusual.”
Statehood Day reminds Tennesseans they are masters, not the victims, of government
This is true with the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court also decides whether a provision of the Constitution applies to the states.
Supreme Court ruled death penalty is allowed for some crimes
This amendment limits the federal government’s ability to impose unduly harsh or excessive punishments on defendants prior to and after they have been convicted. Cases involving this amendment have resulted in a total prohibition against certain punishment, which has been considered cruel and unusual.
Torture prior to death is banned. An example would be the punishment of “drawing and quartering,” which has been forbidden by the Court.
The death penalty has been determined to be unconstitutional as to some crimes but is still allowed in some cases of murder.
Under the “Excessive Fines Clause,” the Court has held that fines should not be grossly excessive and result in property being taken, resulting in a lack of due process.
Under the “Excessive Bail Clause,” bail should not be higher than that which is necessary to make sure the defendant appears at trial.
Timbs v. Indiana applied Excessive Fines Clause to the states
For many years, the Supreme Court has ruled that the “Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause” applies to the states as well as to the federal government. The Excessive Fines Clause had not been applied to the states through a case where that was the issue.
The Supreme Court had not made a broad statement on what Eighth Amendment rights were incorporated to the states based upon the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally, in a case that came from the State of Indiana, the high court ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines applied to the states.
Respect the American flag. Stop playing political games with our national symbol
The case of Timbs v. Indiana was decided on Feb. 20, 2019. The case involved the forfeiture of a high-priced vehicle, allegedly used in drug trafficking. Mr. Timbs pleaded guilty in state court for dealing in a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit theft. Police had seized a Land Rover SUV for which Timbs had paid $42,000. The state argued that the defendant had used the vehicle to transport heroin.
The most the state could have assessed for the fines involved in the case was $10,000. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Indiana Supreme Court, in an opinion written by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The high court ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause applied to the states, regardless of whether the issue involved a fine or a civil forfeiture procedure.
We shall continue our study of the Constitution in the next article about the Ninth Amendment.
We encourage readers to study our Constitution. Such study is time well spent.
Paul G. Summers, a lawyer, is a former appellate and senior judge, district attorney general, and the Attorney General of Tennessee. Raised in Fayette County, Judge Summers resides in Nashville and Holladay.
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Civics lessons: Eighth Amendment applies to states like Tennessee
