Cruel_And_Unusual_Punishment

Cruel And Unusual Punishment better or for worse the constitution often uses vague wording to state a law. This may have very well been intentional. Perhaps the framers of the constitution wanted to establish a belief but allow it to adjust to the interpretations of the times. What exactly did the framers have in mind when they closed the eight amendment prohibiting punishments that are “cruel and unusual”' We have learned that the framers intended for the Law of our country to be a “living law” with the ability to grow and conform to the ever-changing norms of society. But then why would the framers write a statement that simply declares the modern punishment to be within the norms of society. All punishment is within the realm of society’s norms, because it responds to the present needs of that society, mainly through juries and a democratic government. So is the 8th’s final statement pointless, or did the framers intend to set a standard for the limits of harsh punishment' In Trop v. Dulles of 1958 Chief Justice Earl Warren declared that the clause “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society”. In 1944 court, punishment, cruel, unusual, inmates, texas, tdc, society, prison, been, years, supreme, case, being, trop, system, ruled, out, capital, prisons, crime, trial, time, text, staff, ruiz, prisoners, penry, one, justice, framers, found, final