NCJ Number
140806
Journal
New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement Volume: 18 Issue: 1-2 Dated: (Winter-Summer 1992) Pages: 231-258
Date Published
1992
Length
28 pages
Annotation
This article critiques the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in Harmelin v. Michigan (1991), with emphasis on the Court's conclusion that Michigan's "drug-lifer" law is not in violation of the eighth amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Abstract
A 1978 Michigan statute mandates life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for anyone convicted of possessing 650 grams or more of a substance, not necessarily pure, containing heroin. In upholding the constitutionality of this statute, the Court in effect overruled Solem v. Helm (1983), the latest non-capital sentencing case that had effectively established a standard by which sentences could be assessed for their proportionality. The "Harmelin" decision suggests that mandatory, non-capital sentences set by the legislature are not subject to judicial review, thus severely curtailing the power of the courts to act as a check upon the legislature. As a consequence of this decision, the legislature would not in theory, for example, be prevented from making overtime parking a felony punishable by life imprisonment. A return to the proportionality test in Hart v. Coiner (4th Circuit, 1973) would best balance the power of the legislature and the judiciary in ensuring sentencing proportionality. "Hart" uses four elements to determine whether a punishment fits the crime: the nature and gravity of the offense, a comparison with punishments in other jurisdictions, a comparison of punishments available in the same jurisdiction for other offenses, and the legislative purpose underlying the punishment. The fourth element, the legislative intent for the punishment, would ensure that only those offenders targeted in the legislation would receive the punishment. Under this test, Ronald Harmelin, a first-time offender near the bottom of the totem pole, would not receive the life imprisonment without the possibility of parole which the legislature intended for drug "king pins." 221 footnotes