Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1921559
 


 



Practicing Proportionality


William W. Berry III


University of Mississippi School of Law

September 2, 2011

Florida Law Review, Vol. 64, p. 687, 2012

Abstract:     
At the heart of the Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual” punishment clause are two concepts of proportionality – absolute and relative. Absolute proportionality (“cruel”) asks whether the sentence is commensurate with the state’s purposes of punishment. Relative proportionality (“unusual”), by contrast, asks whether the sentence is relatively similar to the outcomes of similar cases. Absolute proportionality sets limits on punishment based on the relationship between the punishment and the intended punitive goal; relative proportionality sets limits on punishment based on the sentencing outcomes in similar cases.

In recent years, the United States Supreme Court has utilized the concept of absolute proportionality to create categorical prohibitions for the use of the death penalty for minor offenders, intellectually disabled offenders, and for non-homicide crimes. The concept of relative proportionality, however, has received little attention recently. Indeed, ignoring this concept has perpetuated disparity in state court sentencing of death-eligible crimes.

This article argues for the restoration of relative proportionality under the Eighth Amendment and proposes a theoretical model for its application. Further, the article addresses the central problem of relative proportionality – the inherent difficulty in applying it to individual cases – by offering a practical framework for determining the relative proportionality of a given case.

This article first outlines the concept of relative proportionality and tracks its origins and jurisprudence. Part Two then explores the current applications of relative proportionality by various states and describes the unfortunate outcomes of these inadequate approaches. Part Three offers a theoretical model for “practicing” the concept of relative proportionality and describes its application. Lastly, Part Four illustrates the jurisprudential and sentencing benefits of practicing proportionality.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 33

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: September 3, 2011 ; Last revised: May 1, 2012

Suggested Citation

Berry, William W., Practicing Proportionality (September 2, 2011). Florida Law Review, Vol. 64, p. 687, 2012. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1921559

Contact Information

William W. Berry III (Contact Author)
University of Mississippi School of Law ( email )
Lamar Law Center
P.O. Box 1848
University, MS 38677
United States
6629156859 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 613
Downloads: 243
Download Rank: 71,714

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.235 seconds