Youngberg Vs. Romeo And Wyatt V. Stickney

During the 1700’s the jails were not only used to confine criminals, but they confined people with mental illness as well. People with mental illness were subjected to inhumane treatment, even when the individual was admitted

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 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.

On July 16th, Emerson Jones, an inmate at the Buckeye Juvenile Correctional Institute, engaged and incited in a prison riot between two gangs. During the full-scale riot, Jones fractured his wrist. Now, Plaintiff Emerson Jones is prosecuting the Buckeye Juvenile Correctional Institute, BJCI, for violating his eighth amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. The two elements that will be called into question is whether or not Guard Mendez acted in sadism and maliciousness and whether or not Nurse Robin Rodgers acted recklessly while knowing the substantial risk of harm. However, the preponderance of the evidence and the law clearly proves that BJCI is not guilty of violating

The theory of ‘deinstitutionalization’ began arising with the theory of providing more freedom to the mentally ill and less spending on full time care facilities. The widespread use of drugs to control the mentally ill in the 1900s led to a mass release of patients and an emptying of asylums. Outpatient Psychiatric Clinics were established. Case Law in the United States began to be generated to provide the mentally ill with greater rights. Shelton v. Tucker 1960 provided that the mentally ill should receive care in the “least restrictive alternative”, which is a practice still utilized. O’Connor v. Donaldson 1975 ruled that non-dangerous mental patients have the right to be treated or discharged if they have been institutionalized against their will. This new approached permitted the mass exodus

Article 12. No person shall be subject to cruel or unusual punishment. (U.S. Const. amend. VIII. 1791.)

This case decision would be another example of the application of the Fourteenth Amendment, which allowed the Bill of Rights to applied to the states as well as with the people of the states. The Eighth Amendment would also play a big factor into the case. The Eighth Amendment defines “cruel and unusual punishment” as well preventing the use of such punishment for criminal offenders. This case would play add another layer to the Eighth Amendment, as it now stretched towards protecting underaged felons from suffering punishments deemed cruel and

Defendants, RICHARD DIAZ and CHARLES LOGAN, by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, move for Summary Judgment on Defendant’s liability under a civil action using 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants, former correctional officers, engaged in nonconsensual sexual conduct with Plaintiff, an inmate, depriving her of her right under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution to remain free from cruel and unusual punishment. In further support of this Summary Judgment requesting that Plaintiff’s request for relief be denied, the Defendants respectfully refer the Court to this Memorandum. As grounds therefore, Defendants state the following:

In 1994 Mr. Latimer was found guilty of second-degree murder of his daughter Tracy Latimer, a 12-year-old girl who had a severe form of cerebral palsy. On a leave to appeal from the Superior Court of Canada (SCC), Mr. Latimer’s imposition of mandatory minimum sentence for second-degree murder constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" in this case, so the accused should receive a constitutional exemption from minimum sentences under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. During the second trial, the defence counsel asked the trial judge for a ruling, in advance of his closing submissions, on whether the jury could consider a defence of necessity. Whether the jury should have been allowed to consider a defence of necessity. The trial judge told counsel that he would rule on necessity after the closing submissions, and later ruled that the defence was not available. Whether the timing of trial judge's ruling as to the availability of the defence rendered accused's trial unfair.

The Supreme Court was charged with answering the question? Does the execution of minors violate the prohibition of “ Cruel and unusual punishments” found in the eighth amendment and

The United States Supreme Court ruled Gerald Gault had been denied several procedural and constitutional rights during his trial in the lower court (Justia US Supreme Court, n.d.). The court found the Juvenile Code of Arizona to be invalid as it allowed the court to have unlimited control over a juvenile, including the ability to remove the child from his parents then place them into a state institution without offering any explanation. The judgment of the court found six specific violations of the Due Process Clause as well as the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in Gerald Gault’s case.

Justice Brennan concurred. It was argued that the cruel and unusual clause was not used properly and consistently. That the clause must evolve along side with the society and ever changing human standards. The clause prohibits “infliction of uncivilized and inhuman punishments” and the state, when punishing an individual must follow the basic human values and not exceed them (O`Brien, 1258).

Lewis Powell was on the principals side, pointed out the majority opinion which states that the 8th Amendment’s ban, “cruel and unusual punishment,” is to be applied to criminals. The students were not criminals and this didn’t apply to them. While on the students side, Byron White argued that the 8th Amendment does not contain the word “criminal” and the court should impose that lamination. Byron also states that the 14th Amendment is also in play here. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that prior notice and an opportunity to be heard must be afforded students before corporal punishment at their schools under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. The Supreme Court ruled that the imposition of corporal punishment is consistent with the Due Process Clause, because of that; the students do not get a hearing before their punishment begins. The court also implies that the students has little need for the protection of the Eighth Amendment and the 14th Amendment protects the right to be free from unjustified intrusions on personal security and states that liberty interests are “implicated” if punishment is unreasonable. If the students received a hearing before being punished, it would signify, burden the use of corporal punishment as a disciplinary

This case was debating whether a mentally retarded criminal can be sentenced to death. A man, by the name of Daryl Renard Atkins was convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder. After a day of drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana, Atkins and his accomplice, William Jones abducted an airman from a nearby Air Force Base, and robbed him of the money in his wallet. When they were not satisfied with the money from his wallet, they forced him withdraw additional money. Following the abduction and robbery, Atkins shot the man eight times. Atkins was given a death penalty, while his accomplice was given life in prison. Atkins brought forth a case, claiming to be mentally retarded and that it would be “a cruel and unusual punishment”

Ultimately, involuntary commitment remains a complicated medically and ethically debated topic; one that creates a conflict and clear divide, between individuals who content that involuntary commitment results in vulnerable individuals with psychiatric illnesses being subjective to coercion and civil rights infringement, and those who believe, based on the principle of utility, that involuntary commitment is essential and integral to the safety of the those with psychiatric illnesses, as well as to society as a whole. Both sides offer empirical evidence, as well as moral support for why they believe involuntary commitment is either legally and morally acceptable, or ethically unacceptable, and thereby should be illegal. Regardless, infringing