Eighth Amendment

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” This amendment prohibits the federal government from imposing unduly harsh penalties on criminal defendants, either as the price for obtaining ...

The Eighth Amendment prohibits certain types of punishment: excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments.1 As discussed in more detail in the following essays, these prohibitions were intended to protect persons convicted of crimes from government abuses of power.

2 Viewed broadly, the Eighth Amendment responded to these historically grounded concerns about disproportionate or cruel punishments by attempting to ensure that punishment is proportioned to both the offender and the offense.

3 What is excessive is also determined by reference to modern standards; the Supreme Court has suggested proportionality may evolve over time.

4 Out of the Eighth Amendment’s three clauses, the bar on cruel and unusual punishment has been most frequently interpreted by the Supreme Court, likely in part due to inherent ambiguities in determining what qualifies as cruel or unusual.

5 The Eighth Amendment generally applies in criminal proceedings, as the most common locus of government punishment, but the Supreme Court has held the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines can apply in civil forfeiture proceedings, noting that the text of the amendment is not limited to criminal cases.

6 Instead, the Court said the relevant constitutional test is whether the government is imposing punishment, focusing on the purpose of a sanction.

7 In addition, although the Eighth Amendment (like the rest of the Bill of Rights) was understood originally to apply only to the federal government, the Supreme Court has held its prohibitions were incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, making them applicable to states.

The protection against double jeopardy keeps defendants from facing criminal prosecution more than once for the same offense. Once jeopardy attaches and a criminal case begins, this protection can prevent lives from being consumed by legal proceedings.

Under double jeopardy, a person cannot: Be prosecuted for the same crime after being found not guilty in a simple legal jurisdiction; or. Be prosecuted for the same crime again after being convicted in a single legal jurisdiction; or. Be punished for the same crime more than once in a single legal jurisdiction.

What 2 qualities must evidence have to be admissible in court?

Generally, to be admissible, the evidence must be relevant) and not outweighed by countervailing considerations (e.g., the evidence is unfairly prejudicial, confusing, a waste of time, privileged, or, among other reasons, based on hearsay).

Under double jeopardy, a person cannot: Be prosecuted for the same crime after being found not guilty in a simple legal jurisdiction; or. Be prosecuted for the same crime again after being convicted in a single legal jurisdiction; or. Be punished for the same crime more than once in a single legal jurisdiction.

Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal circuit courts of appeals have held that defendants who have not fully satisfied their sentences may be retried without violating the double jeopardy clause.

What is an example of when double jeopardy does not apply?

But double jeopardy in California doesn't apply to all situations.