1. “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt”
The Due Process Clause requires the prosecutor to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt of every element necessary to constitute the crime charged.”
Principle of Punishment I: Theories of Punishment
A. Theories of Punishment
1. In general Retributivism (or retribution) v. Utilitarianism
Retribution looks backward and justifies punishment solely on the basis of the voluntary commission of a crime.
Utilitarians look forward. No matter how egregious the wrongdoing, utilitarians do not advocate punishment unless they believe it will provide an overall social benefit.
A retribution claims that punishment is justified because people deserve it.
The wrongdoer should be punished, whether or not it will result in a reduction in crime.
The view that it is wrong to punish an innocent person even if society would benefit from the action.
The view that not only must an innocent person never be punished, but, affirmatively, that one who is guilty of an offense must be punished.
A Utilitarian
People are punished because it serves a larger, social goal.
Pain inflicted by punishment is justifiable only if it is expected to result in reduction in the pain of crime that would otherwise occur.
Deterrence:
Knowledge that punishment will follow crime deters people from committing crimes.
Seeing others punished for certain behavior can cerate in people a sense of association between punishments.
There is deterrence by incapacitation: D’s imprisonment prevents him from committing crimes in the outside society during the period of segregation.
Upon release, there is deterrence by intimidation: D’s punishment reminds him that if he returns to a life of crime, he will experience more pain.
Rehabilitation (Reform):
Use the correctional system to reform the wrongdoer rather than to secure compliance through the fear or “bad taste” of punishment.
Principle of Punishment II: Proportionality
C. Proportionality of Punishment
The Eighth Amendment: The “cruel and unusual punishment” clause. This prohibits cruel and unusual punishment by agents of federal government on persons convicted of criminal conduct.
Is gravity of offense = to punishment?
1. Is the punishment nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering
2. Is it grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime?
How serious was offense?
How se
983)
Life in prison without parole is grossly disproportional for non-violent felony under 3 strikes.
Scalia stated that this sentence does not violate the constitution because the Eighth does not guarantee against disproportionate sentences. Him and Rehnquist would reject the first two prongs and overrule Solem altogether.
The other three justices refused to overrule Solem saying proportionality principle also applies in non-capital sentences (anything short of death is proportional) under the Eighth and established a new three pronged analysis. The court should apply the first test to determine if the offense is a serious one.
Harmelin v. Michigan (1991):
A person was caught with 672 grams of cocaine.
Life in prison w/o parole not grossly disproportional for first time possession of 672 grams cocaine
Scalia and Thomas again stated that there is no proportionality test for sentencing under the Eighth. The other three again refused to overrule Solem.
