NCJ Number
139575
Journal
Criminal Justice Journal Volume: 14 Issue: 1 Dated: (Summer 1992) Pages: 105-120
Date Published
1992
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This article first examines the criteria courts should use to determine if a particular sentence amounts to cruel and unusual punishment and then considers whether or not the sentencing of a criminal defendant with AIDS meets those criteria.
Abstract
The article begins with the facts in the case of Gomez v. United States (1990), in which the criminal defendant, Leonardo Botero Gomez claimed in his appeal before the United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, that his sentence of 10 years for a conviction of a controlled- substance violation amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Next, the article defines cruel and unusual punishment by discussing the constitutional history of the eighth amendment, and how this definition has been applied through case development. The third section of the article examines whether, by applying both the historical definition and case history, Gomez' sentence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Finally, the article examines what the future holds when a court determines whether or not sentencing a criminal defendant with AIDS amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. The analysis shows that the courts find no merit in criminal defendants' arguments that their sentences amount to cruel and unusual punishment because they are afflicted with AIDS. They have consistently held that the incarceration of physically infirm individuals does not per se constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Courts have stated that although it is the judiciary's function to impose sentence upon conviction, it is for the legislature to fix penalties for crimes. In Commonwealth v. Carr (1988) the court held that "a punishment authorized by statute violates the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment only if it is so disproportionate to an offense as to offend evolving standards of decency or a balanced sense of justice." This indicates the courts view the eighth amendment as drawing its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. These standards in turn are viewed by the courts as being derived from the enactments of the elected representatives of the people in the legislatures. 92 footnotes