Dividing Crime, Multiplying Punishments

81 Pages Posted: 19 Nov 2014 Last revised: 2 Sep 2015

See all articles by John F. Stinneford

John F. Stinneford

University of Florida Levin College of Law

Date Written: November 17, 2014


When the government wants to impose exceptionally harsh punishment on a criminal defendant, one of the ways it accomplishes this goal is to divide the defendant’s single course of conduct into multiple offenses that give rise to multiple punishments. The Supreme Court has rendered the Double Jeopardy Clause, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, and the rule of lenity incapable of handling this problem by emptying them of substantive content and transforming them into mere instruments for effectuation of legislative will.

This Article demonstrates that all three doctrines originally reflected a substantive legal preference for life and liberty, and a systemic bias against overpunishment. A punishment was deemed excessive under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause if it was greater than an offender’s retributive desert, as measured against longstanding punishment practice. Prior to the twentieth century, if prosecutors proposed a novel unit of prosecution for a given crime, judges asked two questions: (1) Does this unit of prosecution give the government the opportunity to bring multiple charges based on a single course of conduct?; and (2) If so, would the bringing of multiple charges create an arbitrary relationship between the offender’s culpability and his cumulative punishment, measured in light of prior punishment practice? If the answer to both questions was yes, judges would declare the punishment invalid under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the Double Jeopardy Clause, or the rule of strict construction of penal statutes (the forerunner to today’s rule of lenity). By recovering this methodology for addressing prosecutorial efforts to divide crime and multiply punishments, we can ameliorate our current mass incarceration crisis and make the American criminal justice system more just.

Keywords: Rule of Lenity, Strict Construction, Double Jeopardy, Cruel and Unusual Punishments, Strict Construction of Penal Statutes, Common Law, Instrumentalism, Originalism, Original Meaning, Natural Law, Positivism, Punishment, Sentencing, Statutory Construction, Unit of Prosecution, Excessive Punishment

Suggested Citation

Stinneford, John F., Dividing Crime, Multiplying Punishments (November 17, 2014). 48 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1955 (2015), University of Florida Levin College of Law Research Paper No. 15-7, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2526268

John F. Stinneford (Contact Author)

University of Florida Levin College of Law ( email )

P.O. Box 117625
Gainesville, FL 32611-7625
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics