NCJ Number
17863
Journal
Washington University Law Quarterly Volume: 1974 Issue: 1 Dated: (1974) Pages: 147-152
Date Published
1974
Length
6 pages
Annotation
IN THIS 1973 CASE, THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ADOPTED A DISPROPORTIONALITY APPROACH TOWARD THE MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE WEST VIRGINIA RECIDIVIST STATUTE.
Abstract
PRIOR TO THE SENTENCING OF DEFENDANT ON A PERJURY CONVICTION, THE STATE CHARGED HIM WITH BEING AN HABITUAL CRIMINAL, BASED ON TWO PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS - ONE FOR WRITING A BAD CHECK IN 1949 AND THE OTHER FOR TRANSPORTING FORGED CHECKS SIX YEARS LATER. THE COURT HELD THAT, AS APPLIED TO THE DEFENDANT, THE MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE WAS SO DISPORTIONATE TO THE UNDERLYING OFFENSES THAT IT CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT BAN ON CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. THE AUTHOR CONSIDERS HART SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IT SET FORTH WORKABLE STANDARDS FOR ANALYZING DISPROPORTIONALITY CASES AND APPLIED THOSE STANDARDS TO A RECIDIVIST STATUTE. IN DECIDING THAT THE LIFE SENTENCE IMPOSED ON HART WAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DISPROPORTIONATE, THE COURT CONSIDERED THREE FACTORS THAT IT THOUGHT RELEVANT TO AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT: (1) THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE(S) CHARGED; (2) THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE BEHIND THE ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE; AND (3) A COMPARISON OF THE PUNISHMENT BOTH WITH THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS FOR SIMILAR CRIMES, AND WITH THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED FOR OTHER CRIMES IN THE SAME JURISDICTION. IN MAKING ITS DECISION, THE HART COURT EMPHASIZED THE NON-VIOLENT NATURE OF THE OFFENSES, POINTED OUT THAT THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE UNDERLYING THE PUNISHMENT COULD HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY SERVED BY A LESSER PENALTY, AND NOTED THAT ONLY THREE OTHER STATES PROVIDE A MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE FOR THREE-TIME OFFENDERS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)