Revisiting the Constitution : What's cruel and unusual punishment

"AS I have suggested elsewhere, clarifying and expanding the Eighth Amendment could help. It should specifically state that excessive terms of incarceration are prohibited, just as it bans excessive fines. It should expressly prohibit mandatory sentences so that every case gets the benefit of individualized attention by a judge. And it should insist that legislatures create a record showing that they considered empirical evidence about the law's likely impact. "

This article written by Rachel E. Barkow was very clear on how she felt about the eighth amendment. She would like for the eighth amendment to be reevaluated and expanded so it can help out individuals whom are given sentences for their crime.She is against mandatory sentences because she believes people who are being sentenced should be given individual attention by a judge and given thought about their case in order to give the right sentence.

I chose this paragraph because she was very clear about the changes she would like to see happen with the eighth amendment. The author believes in liberty and equality and making this simple change can affect many peoples lives in a positive way. in another paragraph she even states how the eighth amendment states that it bans cruel and unusual punishment but she strongly believes this contradicts what the eighth amendment is actually doing. I completely agree with Rachel and I think if taken into considerations a lot of changes may occur.

The Federalist NO 10

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

I found this article interesting in many ways. It states how a person cannot basically choose his own fate when it comes to court. A person may not properly be able to see his/her own fault. When a trial goes on a group of people, citizens, are chosen to make a decision. 


The specific part that states "but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine?" Is what caught my eyes. To be honest with all of the crimes going on in today's world, the opinion of the jurors truly matters. Not only the jury but the judge final decision impacts the life of the person who is on trial and who's fate is being decided. A lot of unfair decisions goes on and many people suffer because of this. In my opinion people who are chosen to be a juror may not always reach the right decision.