• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 2005 Excessive Prison Sentences, Punishment Goals, and the Eighth Amendment: "Proportionality" Relative to What? Richard S. Frase Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Frase, Richard S., "Excessive Prison Sentences, Punishment Goals, and the Eighth Amendment: "Proportionality" Relative to What?" (2005). Minnesota Law Review. 668. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/668 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Article Excessive Prison Sentences, Punishment Goals, and the Eighth Amendment: "Proportionality"Relative to What? By Richard S. Fraset Introduction .............................................................................. 572 I. A Short History of Prison-Duration Proportionality in the Suprem e Court ..................................................... 576 A . R um m el v. Estelle .................................................... 577 B . H utto v. Davis .......................................................... 578 C . Solem v. H elm .......................................................... 579 D. Harmelin v. Michigan .............................................. 581 E. Ewing v. California.................................................. 584 F. Lockyer v. A ndrade .................................................. 587 II. Proportionality-Relative to What? ................ ............... 588 A. Retributive Proportionality ..................................... 590 B. Nonretributive Proportionality ............................... 592 1. Ends Proportionality .......................................... 593 2. Means Proportionality ........................................ 595 3. The Ends and Means Proportionality Principles in Action ............................................ 597 III. Examples of the Three Proportionality Principles in American Constitutional Law ........................................ 598 A. Eighth Am endm ent ................................................. 600 1. Capital Punishm ent ........................................... 600 2. Excessive Fines and Forfeitures ........................ 602 3. Excessive B ail ..................................................... 603 - Benjamin N. Berger Professor of Criminal Law, University of Minne- sota Law School. The author would like to thank the following individuals for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this Article: Joshua Dressler, Dan Far- ber, Barry Feld, Wayne Logan, Marc Miller, Kevin Reitz, Adam Samaha, Tom Sullivan, Michael Tonry, Ron Wright, Frank Zimring, and participants in a March 2004 faculty workshop at the University of Minnesota Law School. The contributions of research assistants Rachel Anderson and Aaron Marcus are also gratefully acknowledged. MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW [89:571 4. Long Prison Sentences ....................................... 604 B. Proportionality Rules Under the Due Process Clauses ........................................................ 607 1. Punitive Dam ages .............................................. 607 2. Limits on Forced Medication ............................. 609 3. Administrative Due Process .............................. 610 4. Petty Offense Limits on Criminal Procedure Guarantees ........................................ 611 C. Constitutional Exclusionary Rules ......................... 612 D. Police Powers Under the Fourth Amendment ........ 613 1. Limits on Police Powers in Less Serious C ases ...................................................... 613 2. Fourth Amendment "Reasonableness Balancing .................... 616 E. Other Constitutional Doctrines ............................... 618 1. First Amendment Cases ..................................... 618 2. Equal Protection................................................ 620 3. Federal Legislation Enforcing Fourteenth Am endm ent Rights ............................................. 620 4. Dormant Commerce Clause Cases .................... 621 F . Sum m ary .................................................................. 622 IV. Examples of Proportionality Principles in Foreign and International Law ................................................... 623 A . Sentencing ................................................................ 623 B. Other Foreign Laws ................................................. 626 C. Regional and International Law ............................. 627 V. Implications for Eighth Amendment Analysis of Prison Term s ................................................................... 627 A . R um m el v. Estelle .................................................... 634 B . H utto v. D avis .......................................................... 637 C . Solem v. H elm .......................................................... 638 D. Harmelin v. M ichigan.............................................. 640 E. Ewing v. California.................................................. 642 F. Lockyer v. Andrade .................................................. 644 C onclu sion ................................................................................. 645 In the recent California three strikes cases, the Supreme Court once again rejected strong proportionality limits on the duration of prison sentences under the Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. In Ewing v. California, a three-Justice plurality and four dissenters appeared to agree that the Eighth Amendment forbids prison sentences that are "grossly disproportionate," but disagreed as to the application 2005] PROPORTIONALITY 573 of that standard.1 The plurality expressly (and the dissenters, implicitly) adopted the view, expressed by Justice Kennedy in his concurring opinion in Harmelin v. Michigan,2 that the Eighth Amendment imposes only a "narrow" proportionality principle in noncapital cases. The Court therefore upheld the defendant's sentence of twenty-five-years-to-life in prison for the offense of stealing three golf clubs. 3 In separate concurring opinions, Justices Scalia and Tho- mas maintained that the Eighth Amendment imposes no pro- portionality limits whatsoever. 4 Justice Scalia argued that the concept of Eighth Amendment proportionality accepted by the plurality and dissenters is unintelligible and inappropriate. It is unintelligible, he maintained, because proportionality "isin- herently a concept tied to the penological goal of retribution."5 Yet the plurality conceded that the Eighth Amendment "does not mandate adoption of any one penological theory,"6 and thus agreed that courts must consider whether a given sentence might be justified by other purposes such as incapacitation and deterrence-purposes which, in Justice Scalia's view, have nothing to do with the concept of proportionality. Justice Scalia further argued that, in assessing punishments in light of such a wide range of purposes, "the plurality is not applying law but evaluating policy," which is not a proper role for the courts. 7 None of the other Justices responded in Ewing to Scalia's cri- tique or explained what they meant by proportionality.8 Indeed, 1. Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003). 2. 501 U.S. 957, 996-97 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring). However, Jus- tice Stevens, dissenting in Ewing, questioned whether the Harmelin analysis should apply to a recidivist case. 538 U.S. at 32 n.1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). 3. 538 U.S. at 20, 30-31. 4. Id. at 31 (Scalia, J., concurring); id. at 32 (Thomas, J., concurring). Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, had expressed similar views in his plurality opinion in Harmelin. 501 U.S. at 965. However in Ewing, Chief Justice Rehnquist joined Justice O'Connor's plurality opinion, accepting lim- ited proportionality review. 538 U.S. at 14, 22-24. 5. Ewing, 538 U.S. at 31 (Scalia, J., concurring). 6. Id. at 25 (quoting Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 999 (Kennedy, J., concur- ring)). 7. Id. at 32. In his opinion for the Court in Harmelin, Justice Scalia had argued that Eighth Amendment proportionality review is "an invitation to im- position of subjective values" involving judgments best left to the legislature. Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 986-89. 8. However, Justice Stevens did state that the Eighth Amendment "ex- presses a broad and basic proportionality principle that takes into account all of the justifications for penal sanctions." Ewing, 538 U.S. at 35 (Stevens, J., dissenting). 574 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW [89:571 no clear definition of proportionality can be found in any of the Court's noncapital cases. 9 The companion case to Ewing, Lockyer v. Andrade,10 had even stronger facts: a sentence of fifty-years-to-life for two shoplifting incidents involving nine videotapes. The Court's af- firmance of this extremely harsh punishment prompted the dis- sent to complain that "[i]f Andrade's sentence is not grossly disproportionate, the principle has no meaning."'" However, Andrade provides even less guidance than Ewing does as to Eighth Amendment standards, since the Court did not rule di- 12 rectly on that issue. As a result of these holdings and diverse opinions, it re- mains very unclear when the Court will find a prison sentence unconstitutionally disproportionate, and on what precise grounds. 13 Does the narrow approach currently favored

Load more

  82

Copy Link