When Is the Death Penalty Considered Cruel and Unusual Punishment?

The Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the death penalty is not inherently cruel and unusual. Generally, states have the autonomy to determine the use of the death penalty. However, the Court has identified particular circumstances where deviations from the standard imposition of capital punishment contravene the Eighth Amendment.

The Eighth Amendment and the Death Penalty

The Eighth Amendment states:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

It sets a constitutional limit on the severity and nature of punishments imposed by the justice system.

The interpretation of what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" has evolved. Initially, the focus was on prohibiting torturous and barbaric methods of punishment. Over time, the Supreme Court’s interpretation broadened to encompass factors related to the application of the death penalty, including:

• Fairness
• Proportionality
• Consistency

In Furman v. Georgia (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court grappled with the death penalty's constitutionality as applied in various states. There, the Court ruled that the way the death penalty was administrated at the time violated the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, death sentences were disproportionately applied based on factors such as race.

Furman v. Georgia effectively placed a moratorium on capital punishment in the United States. States were forced to reevaluate their death penalty statutes to address the disparities uncovered in the case. This decision led to a wave of legislative reforms to make the death penalty system more consistent.

While Furman did not abolish the death penalty outright, it marked a significant shift in the Court's approach to capital punishment. For more on this topic, see FindLaw's article, "The Eighth Amendment and the Death Penalty."

Frequently Asked Questions

When is the death penalty considered cruel and unusual punishment?

The death penalty is considered cruel and unusual punishment under certain circumstances, such as:

• When it is applied in a discriminatory manner
• When it involves methods causing excessive pain
• When it is imposed on individuals with serious mental illness/intellectual disabilities or juvenile offenders

The Supreme Court has led the way through various landmark cases, which are discussed below.

How does severe mental illness impact the application of the death penalty?

Mental disorders can impact the application of the death penalty. For example, defendants who are determined legally insane cannot be executed. But, the presence of a mental illness alone is not enough for an insanity plea. A successful insanity defense must show the defendant’s mental illness caused them to not understand their actions were criminal.

So, a severe mental illness like schizophrenia does not automatically rule out the death penalty. However, courts can consider a defendant’s mental health as a mitigating factor in sentencing. Organizations like the American Bar Association and the American Psychiatric Association have called for states to exempt those with severe mental illness from capital punishment. But so far, only a few have done so.

What is competency, and how does it affect death penalty cases?

Competency refers to a defendant's ability to understand the nature and consequences of the legal proceedings against them and assist in their defense.

In the context of the death penalty, the Supreme Court ruled in Ford v. Wainwright (1986) that it is unconstitutional to execute a person who is deemed incompetent. Capital defendants must be able to comprehend their punishment and its reasons.

If a defendant is found incompetent to stand trial, they cannot be executed unless competency is restored. Evaluations and legal standards, often incorporating psychiatric assessments, are utilized to ascertain competency.

Supreme Court Cases that Limit Use of the Death Penalty

The Supreme Court has identified three main categories of cases where the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment:

• In 2002, the Court held that executing a defendant with intellectual disabilities was unconstitutional.
• In 2005, the Court banned the use of the death penalty for crimes a person commits as a minor.
• In 2008, the Court limited the death penalty primarily to cases involving murder.

We discuss each of these cases in more detail below.

Atkins v. Virginia (2002)

Atkins v. Virginia addressed whether the execution of intellectually disabled individuals violated the Eighth Amendment. Daryl Renard Atkins was convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder. He was then sentenced to death despite his documented intellectual disability.

The Supreme Court ruled that executing individuals with cognitive impairments is unconstitutional. The Court held that such executions are inherently cruel and unusual due to the diminished culpability and moral responsibility of these individuals. The decision drew on various state legislative actions and international norms that opposed the execution of intellectually disabled individuals.

Atkins v. Virginia significantly changed the legal landscape for capital punishment in the United States. It mandated that states could no longer execute individuals who are intellectually disabled. This made states establish new procedures to determine intellectual disability in capital cases. The ruling showed the importance of considering individual circumstances in death penalty cases.

Roper v. Simmons (2005)

Roper v. Simmons addressed whether it is constitutional to impose the death penalty on individuals under 18 years old at the time of the crime. The case involved Christopher Simmons, who was sentenced to death for murder. He was 17 at the time of the offense.

The Court ruled that the juvenile death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The opinion noted that, compared to adults, juveniles lack maturity and a sense of responsibility. It also highlighted the potential for growth and rehabilitation in young offenders.

The decision required states to change their laws and commute the sentences of those on death row for crimes committed as minors.

Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008)

Kennedy v. Louisiana addressed whether the use of the death penalty is constitutional for the crime of aggravated rape. The case involved Patrick Kennedy, who was sentenced to death for raping his eight-year-old stepdaughter.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional in cases where the crime did not result in the victim's death and where death was not the intended outcome. The Court emphasized the need for punishment to be proportional to the crime. The death penalty should be reserved for the most egregious offenses, typically those involving the taking of a life.

The decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana limited the application of the death penalty to crimes involving murder or treason. This ruling required states to amend their laws if they allowed the death penalty for non-homicidal crimes like rape.

Cases on Methods of Execution

Several Supreme Court challenges have also raised issues with the methods used to execute. In two cases, the Court upheld the use of lethal injection.

Glossip v. Gross (2015)

Glossip v. Gross examined whether the use of midazolam in Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Richard Glossip and fellow death row inmates contended that midazolam, a sedative, did not adequately render inmates unconscious, resulting in intense pain during executions.

The Supreme Court upheld the use of midazolam in lethal injections. The majority opinion held that the inmates failed to establish that the use of midazolam posed a "substantial risk of severe pain." They also did not present a known and available alternative method of execution that would significantly reduce the risk of pain.

The Court ruled that challenges to execution methods must show a feasible, readily implemented alternative significantly reducing a substantial risk of severe pain.

Bucklew v. Precythe (2019)

This Supreme Court decision addressed the constitutionality of an execution method in the context of an inmate's unique medical condition. Russell Bucklew, a death row inmate in Missouri, argued that executing him using the state's lethal injection protocol would cause excruciating pain due to a rare medical condition.

The Supreme Court ruled against Bucklew, upholding the state's lethal injection protocol. Under Glossip v. Gross (discussed above), an inmate challenging an execution method must:

• Demonstrate that the method poses a substantial risk of severe pain
• Identify a feasible alternative that would significantly reduce that risk

The Court found that Bucklew failed to meet this standard. His proposed alternative method (nitrogen hypoxia) was not proven to be a readily available and less painful option.