Evolving Standards as a Judicial Mandate: Necessary or Superfluous?

By Klimko, Katheryn | Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Spring 2011 | Go to article overview

Evolving Standards as a Judicial Mandate: Necessary or Superfluous?


Klimko, Katheryn, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy


I. DEMOCRATIC EVOLUTION OF "STANDARDS OF DECENCY" IN CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT

Judicial regulation of criminal punishment is fairly uncontroversial, although few have seriously considered how an alternative system, one in which the state legislatures and enacted statutes predominantly controlled the law of criminal punishment, would differ. (1) Upon comparison to the law of corporal punishment, an area controlled by the legislature, it appears that the public naturally uses a form of progressive civility without being forced to do so as judges compel in Eighth Amendment law. Some criminal punishments clearly fall within Eighth Amendment prohibitions, violating the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause; (2) certainly, courts should address and forbid such punishments. Whether other, less extreme punishments violate the clause, however, is more controversial. (3) The Supreme Court addressed many such punishments through its evolving standards of decency test. (4)

Much of the change in what the law forbids as "cruel and unusual," however, comes not through the Court and its evolving standards of decency test but instead through legislative changes that are often driven by evolving public opinion. (5) The changes in criminal punishment that have resulted from court opinions were based on several factors, notably including public opinion. (6) The Court's determination of public opinion, however, is complex: it examines statutory law, applications of statutes in jury sentences, general public views, and recent state trends. (7) In addition to considering public opinion, the Court considers the opinions of its members, the views of expert organizations (professional and religious), and, occasionally, international norms. (8) Judicial emphasis on sources other than public opinion drives the "evol[ution of] standards of decency" at a faster rate than would simple reliance on general public opinion, frequently outpacing societal views on which punishments should be prohibited. (9)

An examination of state laws indicates that states are increasingly banning corporal punishment, thereby rendering inconsequential judicial standards of decency. Because the Eighth Amendment does not forbid noncriminal corporal punishment of children by parents and teachers, (10) and because state courts generally defer to the legislature in determining the legality of such punishment, (11) development of this area of law is primarily statutory (12) and therefore driven in great part by changes in public opinion. Hence, allowing the legislature to determine the legality of punishment does not hamper the evolution of standards of decency. Instead, legislative determinations provide a more natural change in law, occurring at a rate that more closely corresponds to the change in public opinion. In light of the natural change in public opinion about the legality of noncriminal corporal punishment, judicial interference in borderline-objectionable punishments has proven less necessary than proponents of the judicial regulation approach predicted.

Even in the absence of judicial mandates, the legality of criminal punishments would not stagnate, forbidding only those punishments proscribed in 1791. Public opinion gradually has moved in favor of more humane forms of criminal punishment. Much as it has effected change in the realm of noncriminal corporal punishment, the democratic process likely would yield changes in the law of criminal punishments similar to those brought by the courts' doctrine of evolving standards of decency, but at a pace more consistent with the actual evolution of public standards of decency. (13)

II. CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT AND THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT

Supreme Court evaluations of the legality of criminal punishment focus on the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment provides: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." (14) Certain forms of criminal punishment undoubtedly fall within the Eighth Amendment's prohibition. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Evolving Standards as a Judicial Mandate: Necessary or Superfluous?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.