KENNEDY, KENNEDY, AND THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT: “STILL IN SEARCH OF A UNIFYING PRINCIPLE”?

Authors

  • Susan Raeker-Jordan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2011.175

Abstract

In Kennedy v. Louisiana, the United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional a state law that provided for the imposition of death upon one convicted of raping, but not killing or attempting to kill, a child. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion for the Court, in which the majority, employing various analytical tools, brought its "own judgment" to bear on the excessiveness, and therefore the constitutionality, of the death sentence under the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. In emphasizing the Court's use of its own judgment in making the determination of excessiveness or disproportionality, Justice Kennedy and the majority risked the same public and internal dissenting Court criticisms that accompanied previous death penalty opinions in which Court majorities and pluralities similarly employed their own judgments. In the sharp divide over these issues, critics have accused those jurists of disguising their personal views of morality as the doctrinal application of their "own judgment" on these questions. This article argues that despite the criticisms and despite the Court's statement that at least some of its capital punishment case law is "still in search of a unifying principle," there is a precedential thread unifying and justifying the Court's own assessment of excessiveness under the Eighth Amendment. Historical analysis of the Court's Eighth Amendment statements shows that the clear thread in the cases is respect for human dignity and restraint, which plays out through the Amendment's proportionality guarantee. The Court's application of that guarantee against excessiveness has, time and again, invoked the Court's own judgment, based on  contemporary knowledge of punishment, of punishment's goals, and about decency in punishment. This article argues that that approach is sound and historically rooted, and that the Court should continue to apply its own judgment about decency, excessiveness, and proportionality, despite criticisms from the Court's conservative members about personal predilections.

Downloads

Published

2011-05-07

How to Cite

Raeker-Jordan, Susan. 2011. “KENNEDY, KENNEDY, AND THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT: ‘STILL IN SEARCH OF A UNIFYING PRINCIPLE’?”. University of Pittsburgh Law Review 73 (1). https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2011.175.

Issue

Vol. 73 No. 1 (2011)

Section

Articles

License


Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

    2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

    3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons 4.0 License (Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works), or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
      1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
      2. Noncommercial—other users (including Publisher) may not use this Work for commercial purposes;
      3. No Derivative Works—other users (including Publisher) may not alter, transform, or build upon this Work,with the understanding that any of the above conditions can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

    4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

    5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

    6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

    7. The Author represents and warrants that:

      1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
      2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
      3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
      4. the Work has not previously been published;
      5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
      6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
         
    8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.