Proportionality between Crimes, Offenses, and Punishments

Authors

James Headley

First Page

247

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Blackstone said of the Roman Empire, after it embraced unjust laws, "and then the Empire Fell. The United States Supreme Court embraces unjust laws and is inconsistent regarding substantive due process and proportionality in criminal cases, and substantive due process and proportionality in civil cases. The Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment require proportionality and fairness, meaning that the punishment must fit the crime, and that the penalty must be appropriate to the offense. Throughout a long history of jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has developed or embraced two varying theories of due process or proportionality in criminal and civil cases. The Supreme Court has vacillated between recognizing and not recognizing a principle or theory of proportionality through the Eighth Amendment. Early on, the Supreme Court embraced the logical and just reasoning that crime and punishment required proportionality, and the Court followed that logical and just rationale until fairly recently. The purpose of this essay is to examine key Supreme Court decisions regarding the Due Process Clause, proportionality, and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, clarify where the Supreme Court has gone wrong, and discuss what the Supreme Court must do to restore a consistent and just theory of due process and proportionality.

Recommended Citation

James Headley, Proportionality between Crimes, Offenses, and Punishments, 17 St. Thomas L. Rev. 247 (2004).
Available at: https://scholarship.stu.edu/stlr/vol17/iss2/5