cruel and unusual punishment constitution

• Ronnie Johnson v. Michael Wenerowicz, (3rd Cir. 2011)

... Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendmment, and the Pennsylvania constitution and state statutes. . Named as defendants in both ...

• Federal Circuits

• State v. Bell, (Ohio 2011)

Defendant’s guilty plea affirmed. Plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made as the trial court properly advised defendant of postrelease control (nonconstitutional right). Imposition of postrelease control does not violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Potpourri

LAST week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that severe overcrowding in California's prisons constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment," forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. California must free 33,000 inmates or build bigger stockades to house them. Maybe this traumatic ruling eventually will apply to West Virginia, which also has severe overcrowding. As we've said often, courts should stop locking up so many pathetic drugheads and start treating addiction as a medical problem, not a crime. ***

• Charleston Gazette
• May 31, 2011

• U.S. Minors

A year after holding that sentencing a juvenile to life without parole in non-murder cases violates the Constitution's Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether imposing such a sentence on a juvenile for capital murder is unconstitutional. The Court granted certiorari in two cases, to be argued in tandem, involving defendants who were convicted of capital murder. The crimes were committed when each defendant was 14 years old.

• Lawyers USA
• November 14, 2011

• State v. Bedford, (Ohio 2011)

DEATH PENALTY – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIM. – POSTCONVICTION: The common pleas court properly declined to entertain defendant’s late and successive postconviction claim, based on Atkins v. Virginia (2002), 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, that, because he was mentally retarded, his execution would violate the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment contained in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The claim satisfied R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a) because it was predicated upon a new and retrospectively applicable right recognized by the United States Supreme Court since the time prescribed by R.C. 2953.21 had expired. But defendant failed, as required by R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b), to show by clear and convincing evidence the claimed constitutional error, when the record co...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Death Bed

Denno shares how she testified in the Baze et al v. Rees et al case, a bench trial concerning the constitutionality of Kentucky's lethal injection protocol. She testified in behalf of the plaintiffs, Ralph Baze and Thomas Bowling, two condemned inmates who claimed that the Kentucky protocol constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eight Amendment of the US Constitution and Section 17 of the Kentucky Constitution. Here, she explains why she testified and why she thinks lethal injection is inhumane and tortuous.

• Triquarterly
• Nbr. 124, January 2006

• Lawsuit Raises Questions About Prison Privatization

The IPAS complaint argues the Department of Correction is violating the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. [...] in a written statement, he said, "We at the Department of Correction believe we have afforded appropriate and lawful mental health care and treatment to offenders in our custody and are fully prepared to defend against the allegations made by plaintiffs in their complaint.

• Indianapolis Business Journal
• August 28, 2009

• State v. Milby, (Ohio 2010)

Appellant waived his right to contest a police search because he failed to file a pre-trial suppression motion. Senate Bill 10 does not violate the retroactivity clause of the Ohio Constitution or the ex post facto, due process, and cruel and unusual punishment provisions of the United States Constitution. Appellant was not denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. Milby’s reclassification as a Tier III offender by the Attorney General violated the separation of powers provisions of the Ohio Constitution. State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-2424. Judgment Reversed and Remanded for resentencing.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Clarence Page: Turning Denying Dads Into Proud Papas

IT'S the sort of story that had to happen sooner or later: A Detroit judge is sentencing delinquent dads to watch the "Maury" television show. If you're not a fan, that may strike you as a violation of the Constitution's provisions against cruel and unusual punishment. But this punishment does fit the crime. Judge Wade McCree of the Wayne County Circuit Court doesn't sentence all of his dads who fall behind in their child support payments to watch the syndicated daytime talk show hosted by Maury Povich. Some are too far beyond redemption, he says, to benefit much from force-fed video therapy.

• San Gabriel Valley Tribune
• May 19, 2009

• Ohio Supreme Court Finds Juvenile Sex Offender Law Unconstitutional

A state law imposing automatic, lifelong registration and notification requirements on certain juvenile sex offenders violates the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled in reversing judgment. The defendant was 15 years old when he was charged with sexually molesting a six-year-old boy. A state juvenile court denied the state's motion to have the defendant tried as an adult, found the defendant to be a delinquent child, and classified him as a juvenile sex offender subject to a state law imposing automatic, lifelong registration and notification requirements.

• Lawyers USA
• April 12, 2012