Andrew is sentenced to death for torture. In Andrew’s state, an “eye-for-an-eye” statute mandates punishment that mimics the defendant's crime. Pursuant to this statute, Andrew will be tortured to death. Is the state’s eye-for-an eye statute constitutional under the Eighth Amendment? Why or why not? (3.6.9).
Criminal Law Exercise #2: The Menendez Brothers
Review the case of Menendez v. Terhune, 422 F.3d 1012 (2005). The links to the case are in the Introduction to Criminal Law book (5.2.6). After reviewing all relevant materials, answer the following question. Your response must be in APA format.
Do you think the Menendez case should have been treated as a "battered child syndrome" case, easing the requirement of imminence and allowing jury instruction on imperfect self-defense? Why or why not?
Forbidden Punishments: The Supreme Court has historically barred certain punishments as categorically unconstitutional, regardless of the crime. Torture is considered one of these forbidden punishments. The state's action, in this case, would be seen as excessively cruel, unnecessary, and a gratuitous infliction of suffering. The goal of punishment is not retribution in the form of identical suffering (lex talionis or "eye-for-an-eye"), but deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution consistent with constitutional limits.
Therefore, a statute mandating torture to death clearly constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and would be struck down as a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
⚖️ The Menendez Brothers Case and Battered Child Syndrome
The question of whether the Menendez case should have been treated as a "battered child syndrome" (BCS) case, easing the requirement of imminence for self-defense and allowing for imperfect self-defense jury instruction, presents a complex legal and ethical dilemma.
Analysis of Battered Child Syndrome (BCS) in Self-Defense
BCS is a psychological condition recognized in legal contexts, often related to Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS), where continuous abuse leads the victim to have a heightened perception of danger. Legally, the relevance of BCS is two-fold:
Reasonableness: It helps a jury understand why the defendant's perception of imminent danger was reasonable to them, even if it was not objectively imminent in the moment of the crime (People v. Humphrey, 1996).
Mitigation: It can mitigate the defendant's mental state, potentially lowering the charge from murder to manslaughter based on an honest, but unreasonable, belief in the need for self-defense (imperfect self-defense).
Argument for BCS Treatment and Imperfect Self-Defense
I believe the Menendez case should have allowed the jury instruction on imperfect self-defense by easing the strict requirement of imminence, acknowledging the context of chronic abuse.
Sample Answer
The state's "eye-for-an-eye" statute, which mandates torturing a defendant to death for the crime of torture, is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
🏛️ Eighth Amendment Analysis (Andrew's Statute)
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the federal government and, through the Fourteenth Amendment, the states, from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
The Supreme Court has long interpreted the Eighth Amendment using several key standards:
Evolving Standards of Decency: Punishment must comport with "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" ( Trop v. Dulles, 1958). Torture, as a form of punishment, is widely considered a relic of the past and violates modern standards of human dignity.
Proportionality: The punishment must not be grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime. While torture is an egregious crime, the state's use of torture as a punishment goes beyond mere proportionality; it represents a complete rejection of rehabilitation and human dignity.