Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Cruel Punishment

Just like defining “Law,” cruel punishment has no universally expected definition. The existing legal systems define cruel punishment in terms that best suit the applicability of their legal system as well as considering the expected morals in a particular society. The complexity surrounding definition of cruel and unusual punishment has been made possible by the elasticity of society and therefore flexibility of morals. What is moral in one society is definitely not moral in another society. However, due to the need of conformity and standardization that has been occasioned by globalization, most societies do share the same legal system and as a result they share a common definition as far as cruel and unusual punishment is concerned. This way, it becomes easier for a legal system to define cruel punishment in a way that best suits the applicability of their various laws without arising inconsistencies and repugnancies to justice as well as law and morality of a society. Therefore as discussed above, a legal system has to define cruel punishment according to the moral standards of its society. It has to take into consideration the attitude of the people living in the society into consideration when positing such definition. Additionally, they have to consider the applicability of the definition and its anticipated results. For any law to be effective it has got to be backed by sanctions, therefore a legal system has got to find ways of delivering punishment that is proportionate to the gravity of the crime committed. That way it will succeed in impeding other offenders from such acts and therefore making the society safer. This paper is going to look into the Common Law definition of cruel and unusual punishment. It will also look into the legal precedents that have been set by court cases in the USA in an attempt to define cruel and unusual punishment. Specifically it is going to discuss cruel and unusual punishment from the point of view

References: Brown v. Mayle, 283 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2002) Coker v Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S. Ct. 3368, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1140 (1982) Ford v gregg v. georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S. Ct. 2909, 49 L. Ed. 2d 859 [1976] Hudson v Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L. Ed. 2d 666 (2002) Jackson v Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S. Ct. 2954, 57 L. Ed. 2d 973 [1978] Lockyer v Miller v. State, 63 So. 3d 676 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010) [2010 BL 199701] Trop v Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S. Ct. 3001, 77 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1983)