Eighth Amendment’s Ban on Cruel and Unusual Punishment and the Katz Test

Philosophy of Law
Name
Institution
Course
Instructor
Date
Philosophy of Law
The United States federal government had more power when it endorsed the Constitution. The regime constructed federal crimes and means of punishment. Antagonists of the Constitution feared that Congress would use its newfound power to oppress people (Bedau, 2019). For instance, Abraham Holmes and Patrick Henry argued that the government could torture individuals condemned of federal wrongdoings. Moreover, there was a high chance of introducing practices of Germany and Spain of torturing suspects to extract a confession and still punish them relentlessly. In addition, Congress could justify its action as a necessity for strengthening the government (Bedau, 2019). Therefore, the opponents saw a need for regulations that forbid cruel and unusual treatments. These oppositions contributed largely to ratifying the 8th Amendment, which protects criminals from extreme punishments. The clause prohibits the government from using excess bail, fines, and torture to reprimand lawbreakers
The deliberation establishes that using barbaric means of punishment violates the Eighth Amendment. This means that the government is in no position to reintroduce the use of thumbscrew, gibbets, and racks as a form of castigation. Moreover, the clause limits federal and state power since it cannot deprive individuals of liberty, life, and property (Bedau, 2019). However, outside these agreements, there are many differences concerning the application and meaning of unusual and cruel punishment. For instance, Furman and five other judges conducted a follow-up case in 1976 to evaluate the constitutionality of capital punishment. The court proclaimed that the means of administering the death penalty was a desecration of the Eighth Amendment. However, the judges concurred because they tackled the matter from different viewpoints (Bedau, 2019). Two adjudicators concluded that death punishment was unusual and cruel because it did not align with human dignity and was morally excessive and intolerable. The other two concluded that death was harsh and uncommon because the state applied it in a subjective malicious, inexplicable routine and so irregular that it served no vindicating end. One justice determined that the death penalty violated the equality treatment found in the Eighth Amendment since mostly the poor suffered the punishment.
Several challenges arise with the Amendment. For instance, which standards should the court use to determine whether a punishment is unusual and cruel? Some argue that courts should use the nation's criteria adopted in the Eighth Amendment in 1791. Others advocate for using modern public opinions. The courts must also decide whether to exercise their moral judgments regardless of communal unanimity or if they should look for other standards (Bedau, 2019). There is also a contest of whether the death penalty is unusual and cruel. People still question what punishment the originalists of the 8th Amendment deem deserving for wrongdoers who have murdered other people. Individuals who support death argue that capital punishment is outdated and gives no public good (Bedau, 2019). In addition, these people have the attitude that some offenders ha...