On Monday, the Supreme Court docket will hear argument in an Eighth Modification case, Metropolis of Grants Cross, Oregon v. Johnson. One factor I will likely be waiting for is whether or not the justices of their questions deal with “cruel and unusual” as two separate necessities, or as one.
Learn as a hendiadys, “cruel and unusual” would imply “unusually cruel.” If “unusual” is taken as a time period of artwork that means “contrary to long usage,” then the hendiadys would imply “innovatively cruel.”
If “cruel and unusual” means “innovatively cruel,” then there are not any sequenced inquiries into whether or not a punishment is “cruel” after which “unusual.” There’s a single inquiry into innovation in cruelty. It’s true that one may break this single inquiry into two analytical steps. First, is that this punishment modern? Second, does this punishment’s innovation improve cruelty? But that may be very totally different from the 2 steps related to a two-requirements view. Those that see the phrase as containing two necessities sometimes ask first whether or not a punishment is merciless after which whether or not it’s uncommon, treating the 2 as distinct and unrelated inquiries. But when the phrase is taken as a hendiadys, as a necessary unity, then these two inquiries—is the punishment modern? and does the innovation improve cruelty?—will not be actually distinct in any respect. One tells the interpreter to search for innovation; the opposite tells the interpreter what kind of innovation to search for.
Briefly, if the phrase is taken as a hendiadys, the prohibited punishments wouldn’t be ones that merely occur to be each merciless and strange. Reasonably, the Clause would prohibit punishments which can be new of their cruelty. A brand new, extra painful type of capital punishment; a brand new, extra damaging mode of incarceration (maybe resembling solitary con- finement); a brand new, extra demeaning restriction on the liberty of motion of launched offenders—all could be “innovatively cruel.”
. . .
The fears expressed by the Anti-Federalists weren’t with out basis. Certainly, the primary Congress prescribed the demise penalty for anybody convicted of homicide in a spot beneath unique federal jurisdiction— including, for the advantage of science and for better deterrence, that the court docket may require “that the body of [the] offender . . . be delivered to a surgeon for dissection.”
In different phrases, the priority behind the Merciless and Uncommon Punishments Clause was about progress. However it was not Herbert Spencer’s view of social progress as a lot because it was William Hogarth’s view of the rake’s progress. Occasions change and issues can go downhill, and once they do, there must be one thing within the Structure to withstand the devolving requirements of decency.
A slide into extreme punishments was not, nonetheless, considered inevitable. Though there was little dialogue of the Merciless and Uncommon Punishments Clause on the time of its ratification, what dialogue there was exhibits a extra refined, two-sided view of innovation: Legislators must be constrained from improvements that improve cruelty, however they need to be inspired to undertake improvements that ameliorate it. The studying given right here precisely matches that two-sided view: “Cruel and unusual” is a hendiadys that prohibits not all innovation in punishment, however solely innovation that brings new cruelty.
Second, this studying can result in an inquiry that’s higher suited to judicial choice making. What makes this second benefit doable is {that a} hendiadic studying of the phrase permits a broad, non-evaluative studying of “cruel.” If “cruel” is taken as an evaluative time period, judges are pressured to make absolute judgments about what’s or is just not merciless. That could be a troublesome query. In fact some punishments are extra merciless than others, however the level of issue is the constitutional cut-off. If punishments are be- ing judged on whether or not they’re merciless in a way like “unjustifiably cruel” or “malevolently cruel”—then the query is an inescapably ethical one, a query on which particular person judgments are prone to range broadly. If the query is shifted to an inquiry into the subjective intentions and data of presidency officers, that inquiry too is one on which particular person judgments will diverge. Neither is the query made simpler by directing it in the direction of a second in historical past, as in, “What was considered cruel in 1791?” That’s nonetheless an summary ethical query, but with the added issue of being a query the current is asking of the previous.
However the judicial activity adjustments if the phrase is learn as a hendiadys and “cruel” is known within the sense of “harsh.” If what kinds the constitutional punishments from the unconstitutional ones is just not whether or not they’re “unjustifiably cruel,” however whether or not they’re “innovatively harsh,” then the judicial inquiry is a comparative one. Judges wouldn’t be figuring out the quantum of cruelty that’s constitutionally permissible, however they might as an alternative be asking whether or not a punishment exhibits innovation in its harshness. This activity is comparative, and such a activity tends to be extra amenable to judicial competence.