What is the standard of review for a federal and state tortfeasor's claim to be "cruel and unusual"?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Bunton, B280879 (Cal. App. 2018):
art. I, 17, italics added.) This prohibition may be violated if a punishment is " 'so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.' " (People v. Cartwright (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1136.)
Although there is a considerable overlap in the federal and state approaches to determining whether a punishment is cruel and/or unusual, we consider each separately because the distinction in wording is "purposeful and substantive rather than merely semantic." (People v. Carmony (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1085.)
1. Standard of review
"Whether a punishment is cruel and/or unusual is a question of law subject to our independent review, but underlying disputed facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment." (People v. Palafox (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 68, 82.)
2. Bunton's federal constitution claim
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
