Excessive Force Case Summary

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects us to not be putted into cruel and unusual punishments, but when it comes to the death penalty, things become more complicated. In my personal opinion, I believe the absolute interpretation of the 8th Amendment and that the death penalty undoubtedly violates the 8th Amendment. Looking at the case of “Furman v. Georgia (1972)”, the Court invalidated death penalty laws in the end because the justices considered the punishment of the death penalty was too cruel and unusual to the Furman’ sin, accidentally killing people, and disproportionately using the death penalty would result in more serious problems to the poor and minorities. This decision fully reflected the reliability of

In the United States Constitution, the 8th Amendment prohibits the use and practices of cruel and unusual punishment. What exactly is considered to be cruel and unusual punishment? This question is a hot topic among America's many different current controversies. Many people are saying that the use of capital punishment (to be sentenced to death as a penalty in the eyes of the law [a capital crime]. An execution [capital punishment]) is a direct violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (Capital Punishment). They say there should be another way to deal with these criminals other than having them executed. The purpose of this paper is to give a brief history of the death penalty

This case is important to anyone working in law enforcement because of the objective reasonableness standard that it established via the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This case also reversed a four-factor test regarding use of force that was used to test if the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain discipline or was applied with malice to cause harm. The Supreme Court in 490 U.S. 396 (1986) determined that the four factor test did not cover all possible situations and only the decision making skills of a human being can adequately determine the appropriate use of force.

The moral and ethical debate on the sentencing and enforcement of capital punishment has long baffled the citizens and governing powers of the United States. Throughout time, the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, and the vast majority beliefs of Americans, have been in a constant state of perplexity. Before the 1960s, the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were interpreted as permitting the death penalty. However, in the early 1960s, it was suggested that the death penalty was a "cruel and unusual" punishment and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Many argue that capital punishment is an absolute necessity, in order to deter crime, and to ‘make things right’ following a heinous crime of murder. Despite the belief that capital punishment may seem to be the only tangible, permanent solution to ending future capital offenses, the United States should remove this cruel and unnecessary form of punishment from our current judicial systems.

The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment largely concerns itself with disproportionate and arbitrary punishments imposed by the government. “The Court has repeatedly emphasized the Eighth Amendment’s expansive and vital character and its capacity for evolutionary growth.” (Kanovitz, 2010) Cruelty is interpreted as actions that oppose current standards of decency. As public opinion grows and changes these standards are apt to change. The vague wording of the Eighth Amendment allows room for the opinion of what punishments are acceptable to adapt to modern times.

While racing down the freeway on March 3, 1991, driver Rodney King and friends were leading the Los Angeles Police Department on a high speed chase making it up to 115 miles per hour. When King was eventually caught, officers pulled him from his car and began to beat King with their batons hitting and kicking him more than 50 times and shocking him with stun guns in a period of two minutes as he struggled helplessly on the ground outside of his car. King suffered 11 skull fractures, kidney damage, and brain damage. This was one of America’s first viral video of what excessive force is, and it changed the way police interacted with communities forever. The use of police force is an obligation, but unfortunately some officers may misuse, or abuse

Have you ever thought about what happens if a person breaks a law? What if this individual breaks a minor law and creates a larger problem? A strong topic is upon our society when it comes to law enforcement and the tough physical and verbal oppression that they have the potential to put on people when it comes to breaking the law. Police officers are supposed to be society 's saviors, guardians, and our friends. However, when things do not go quite right, and when someone breaks the law, there will always be that chance that things could escalate. These officers are supposed to deescalate situations and solve problems. That is what society relies on them at any given moment. Sometimes it takes an escalation of force to deescalate a criminal situation. This is why society sees the men and women in uniform with weapons capable of hindering life to the fullest. However, when this force is used and abused, it creates problems. The public eye becomes weary of the police in many different ways for using excessive force to deescalate a situation. Excessive force and police brutality are often caused by depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, as well as other mental disorders; due to the way they are portrayed by the media, excessive force and police brutality have a direct effect on the American society as well as fellow officers in all branches of law enforcement.

1983.” The District Court applying a four-factor test to determine, at the close of Graham’s evidence, when excessive use of force touches off of a 1983 cause of action inquiring inter alia, whether the force had been applied in a good-faith effort in order to maintain and reinstitute discipline or maliciously and sadistically just for the purpose of causing harm to an individual. The Court of Appeals affirmed, this test being endorsed as generally pertinent to claims of constitutionally excessive force being brought against any and all government officials, Graham’s argument that it was errored to require Graham to prove that the alleged excessive use of force was applied in malice and sadistically in order to cause harm to him. Reasonable jury holding that the Johnson v. Glick test resulted in the conclusion that the amount of force applied was not considered a constitutionally excessive

Concurrent Justice Antonin Scalia begins his opinion pointing out the fact that these petitioners bring their “case” to the Court, crying that their sentences are violating the Eighth Amendment, despite being cruel and unusual themselves. “They were charged by a sovereign State with murder. They were…tried twice, once to determine whether they were guilty…and whether death was the appropriate sentence…And now, acknowledging that their convictions are unassailable, they aske us for clemency, as though clemency were ours to give” (Justice Scalia,

The eighth amendment to the United States Constitution states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted (US Const. amend. IIX.).” The wording of this amendment has raised the question on what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This ambiguity of this section constitution has caused the hot debate, whether or not capital punishment is constitutional or not. The use of capital punishment harms the innocent, wastes money, and is unconstitutional.

These circumstances included air craft highjacking; treason; murder for hire; murder of a judicial officer, policeman, or fireman in line of duty; and murder by a person with a previous record of violent crime. This decision made it clear that the justices did not consider the death penalty per say to be “cruel and unusual punishment” in the sense intended by the constitution.” (Davis, 196-197). The justices reaffirmed what an unbiased historical and legal analysis would reveal every time that our forefathers were not against Capitol Punishment but against the misapplication of punishment bringing about injustice.

The supreme court made a ruling that determined that one’s punishment must be equal to the crime committed due to the eighth amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. “The Court has attempted to simultaneously satisfy its moral inclinations and the text of the Constitution, but these efforts have resulted in an inconsistent and confusing Eighth Amendment Punishments Clause jurisprudence” (Ryan, 2010, p. 569).

In Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848 (4th Cir. 1990), the Court of Appeals reviewed the standard to be applied when considering an inmate 's claim that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment as a result of deliberate indifference by prison personnel to an inmate 's

The complaints that were brought up were that confinement in cells in the isolation unit of the Farm amounts to cruel and unusual punishment as prohibited by the eighth amendment. They were also denied adequate medical attention, and that penitentiary authorities have failed to take adequate steps to protect inmates from assaults by other inmates. They also say that the Farm is depriving them of their fourteenth amendment rights. The court defines cruel and unusual punishment as such: a flexible and expanding one, and that punishment or system of punishment is unconstitutional if it offends concepts of decency and human dignity and precepts of civilization which Americans profess to possess, or if it is disproportionate to the offense, or if it violates fundamental standards of good conscience and fairness. They needed to show that the prison authorities had “abandoned elemental concepts of decency by permitting conditions to prevail of a shocking and debased

The fundamental duty of a police officer is to serve and protect the people, it’s the way they’re trained and it’s the sole purpose of why they wear a uniform and a badge. Police officers are trained to take on anything that will protect the citizens and themselves, because of this there’s been contrasting attributes to how they are trained. Since, over the past few years there has been an increase rate of police officers using excessive force to maintain order, because of this it is questioned whether it is ethical for the police officers to be trained in a way that will cause them to use immoderate use of force?