The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

Punishments Specifically Allowed
In Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1878), the Court stated that death by firing squad
was not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
In Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980), the Court upheld a life sentence with the
possibility of parole imposed per Texas's three strikes law for fraud crimes totaling $230.
A few months later, Rummel challenged his sentence for ineffective assistance of
counsel, his appeal was upheld, and as part of a plea bargain Rummel pled guilty to
theft and was released for time served.
In Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991), the Court upheld a life sentence without
the possibility of parole for possession of 672 grams (1.5 pounds) of cocaine.
In Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), the Court upheld a 50 years to life sentence
with the possibility of parole imposed under California's three strikes law when the
defendant was convicted of shoplifting videotapes worth a total of about $150.
In Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008), the Court upheld Kentucky's execution protocol
using a three drugs cocktail.
In Glossip v. Gross, No. 14-7955, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) the Court upheld the use of
lethal injections using the drug midazolam.
Evolving Standards of Decency
In Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), Chief Justice Earl Warren said: "The [Eighth]
Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark
the progress of a maturing society." Subsequently, the Court has looked to societal
developments, as well as looking to its own independent judgment, in determining what
are those "evolving standards of decency".
Originalists like Justice Antonin Scalia argue that societies may rot instead of maturing,
and may decrease in virtue or wisdom instead of increasing. Thus, they say, the framers
wanted the amendment understood as it was written and ratified, instead of morphing
as times change, and in any event legislators are more competent than judges to take
the pulse of the public as to changing standards of decency.
The "evolving standards" test is not without its scholarly critics as well. For example,
Professor John Stinneford asserts that the "evolving standards" test misinterprets the
Eighth Amendment:
The Framers of the Bill of Rights understood the word "unusual" to mean "contrary to
long usage." Recognition of the word's original meaning will precisely invert the
"evolving standards of decency" test, and ask the Court to compare challenged
Page 54 of 190