Solem v. Helm

5 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Capital Defense Weekly, Febuary 28 , 2000

    Capital Defense NewsletterFebruary 28, 2000

    Under this analysis, the purpose of the clause is to protect American citizens from punishments which were considered unnecessarily cruel, torturous, or barbarous by English law at the time the Eighth Amendment was adopted. Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 285-86 (1983); id. at 312-13 (Burger C.J., joined by White, Rehnquist, and O'Connor, J.J., dissenting ).

  2. Pirates and the Rule of Law: Mandatory Life Sentences

    Norman A. Thomas, PLLCNorman A. ThomasAugust 1, 2015

    In reversing the District Court, the Fourth Circuit first acknowledged the applicability of the two-prong test of Graham v. Florida, although it recited that test somewhat differently from the District Court:Under prong one, a court must determine whether a threshold comparison of “the gravity of the offense and the severity of the sentence” produces “an inference of gross disproportionality.” See Graham, 560 U.S. at 60 (internal quotation marks omitted) (relying on principles set forth in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983)). If prong one is satisfied, the court moves to an analysis of prong two.

  3. Capital Defense Weekly, March 10, 2003

    Capital Defense NewsletterMarch 10, 2003

    Justice Scalia agreed that petitioner's sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, but on the ground that that prohibition was aimed at excluding only certain modes of punishment. This case demonstrates why a proportionality principle cannot be intelligently applied, and why Solem v. Helm, 463 U. S. 277, should not be given stare decisis effect. Pp. 1-2.

  4. Capital Defense Weekly, October 21, 2002

    Capital Defense NewsletterOctober 21, 2002

    The exception—the number of States expressly forbidding the execution of juvenile offenders (28) is slightly fewer than the number forbidding the execution of the mentally retarded (30)—does not justify disparate treatment of the two classes. Indeed, the fact that since 1989, state legislatures in Indiana,1 Montana,2 New York,3 and Kansas,4 and the Supreme Court of the State of Washington5 have all forbidden the execution of persons who were under 18 at the time of their offenses minimizes the significance of that exception.Rather than repeating the reasoning in our opinion in Atkins, I think it appropriate to quote the following comments from Justice Brennan’s dissenting opinion in Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U. S., at 394–396 which I joined in 1989:“Proportionality analysis requires that we compare ‘the gravity of the offense,’ understood to include not only the injury caused, but also the defendant’s culpability, with ‘the harshness of the penalty.’ Solem [v. Helm, 463 U. S. 277, 292 (1983)]. In my view, juveniles so generally lack the degree of responsibility for their crimes that is a predicate for the constitutional imposition of the death penalty that the Eighth Amendment forbids that they receive that punishment.

  5. Capital Defense Weekly, August 13 , 2001

    Capital Defense NewsletterAugust 12, 2001

    " Engberg v. State, 686 P.2d 541, 554 (Wyo.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1077, 105 S.Ct. 577, 83 L.Ed.2d 516 (1984), quoting Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 3010- 11, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983). In conducting this review, the Wyoming Supreme Court looks to other capital cases.