Sullivan v. State - Florida Supreme Court Case Analysis
Sullivan v. State: Is Proportionality Really in the Eighth Amendment?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………3
General Background and Procedural Information……………………4
Origins of the 8th Amendment and History of
Proportionality……………………………………………………………………………………………………4
Capital Crimes and Proportionality:
Furman, Gregg, Coker………………………………………………………………………………………7
The Proportionality See-Saw: Rummel to Harmelin………………9
The Second Dimension: Criminal Sentence of a Minor……13
Prediction and Conclusion: Florida Should Prevail………15
Introduction
The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution requires that the government impose no punishment that is “cruel and unusual.”1 One question that rises from this amendment is whether or not a sentence is unconstitutional if it is disproportional to the crime committed. In recent past, the United States Supreme Court has struggled with this issue and with coming to a consensus on how to view proportionality in the Eighth Amendment.2
Recently, the United States Supreme Court has decided to hear a Florida case, Sullivan v. State, 987 So.2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), where a minor received a life without parole sentence in a conviction for rape.3 This note will analyze the Sullivan case and predict how the Court will likely rule. There are two dimensions that this note will discuss: First, the Eighth Amendment jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court regarding proportionality in sentencing. And second, the Court’s treatment of minors under the Eight Amendment’s “cruel and unusual” clause.
In conclusion, this note will show that the United States Supreme Court is likely to clarify its decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991), and affirm the decision of the Florida courts to uphold the life sentence.4
General Background and Procedural Information
Originally, as with all
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………3
General Background and Procedural Information……………………4
Origins of the 8th Amendment and History of
Proportionality……………………………………………………………………………………………………4
Capital Crimes and Proportionality:
Furman, Gregg, Coker………………………………………………………………………………………7
The Proportionality See-Saw: Rummel to Harmelin………………9
The Second Dimension: Criminal Sentence of a Minor……13
Prediction and Conclusion: Florida Should Prevail………15
Introduction
The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution requires that the government impose no punishment that is “cruel and unusual.”1 One question that rises from this amendment is whether or not a sentence is unconstitutional if it is disproportional to the crime committed. In recent past, the United States Supreme Court has struggled with this issue and with coming to a consensus on how to view proportionality in the Eighth Amendment.2
Recently, the United States Supreme Court has decided to hear a Florida case, Sullivan v. State, 987 So.2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), where a minor received a life without parole sentence in a conviction for rape.3 This note will analyze the Sullivan case and predict how the Court will likely rule. There are two dimensions that this note will discuss: First, the Eighth Amendment jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court regarding proportionality in sentencing. And second, the Court’s treatment of minors under the Eight Amendment’s “cruel and unusual” clause.
In conclusion, this note will show that the United States Supreme Court is likely to clarify its decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991), and affirm the decision of the Florida courts to uphold the life sentence.4
General Background and Procedural Information
Originally, as with all