Cruel & Unusual Punishment in Lehigh

This is a post about cruel and unusual punishment in Pennsylvania and, consequently, Lehigh County.  The Pennsylvania Constitution in Article 1 Section 13 provides that "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel punishments inflicted." In addition, the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution similarly provides, "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The basic concept underlining the Eighth Amendment is nothing less than the dignity of man. Although the state has the power to punish, the Eighth Amendment stands to assure that this power be exercised within the limits of civilized standards. This is from the case of Rivera v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections from 2003.  Moreover, the United States Constitution's Eighth Amendment banning cruel and unusual punishment has been applied to the states by the 14th Amendment. The standard of what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" is fluid, and includes not only the penalty inflicted but also the severity of the penalty measured against the crime committed, the process by which the penalty is inflicted, and whether the punishment makes a measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment or is nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering.  What constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in the constitutional sense is a matter which defies concrete definition. This is of tremendous frustration to a Lehigh County criminal lawyer as it empowers judges and prosecutors to provide alternative or lengthy sentences.  

More Case Law

Generally, the concept of cruel and unusual punishment is one of wide application, capable of acquiring new depth of meaning to conform to more enlightened concepts of criminal justice. The case involving this theory is from Coker v. Georgia from 1977. The Eighth Amendment protects individuals against excessive civil fines, including forfeitures. Whether a particular punishment is criminal or civil is initially a question of statutory construction. However even when the legislature has intended to establish a civil penalty, the courts will inquire further to determine whether the statutory scheme is so punitive in purpose or effect as to transform what was intended as a civil remedy into a criminal penalty. These factors were outlined in Commonwealth v. CSX Transportation Incorporated from 1998.