8th Amendment Case Summary

Dr. Timothy Quill and three other terminally ill patients filed a case against the Attorney General of New York State claiming violation of the Equal Protection Clauses. The New York State law allowed discontinuation of life-saving treatment for a competent person who was terminally ill, however, it imposed a ban on physician assisted suicide. The district court did not agree but the Court of Appeals reversed stating that they were moreover similar things and the ban was an unequal treatment. The Supreme Court granted a certiorari. Issue: There is a clear distinction between refusing a life-saving treatment and physician assisted suicide, does the terminally ill patients vies this distinction as an operating violation of Equal Protection Clause?

The district court found that the Washington law violated both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the court of appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. 4. Issue Three terminal ill patients and four doctors brought forth a case challenging Washington State’s position on assisted suicide.

Their argument was that the use of midazolam as the initial drug violated the 8th amendment 's constraints from cruel and unjust punishment.. They also requested preliminary injunction to prohibit

In the Baxter v. Montana case, the Plaintiffs ' statement was that the right to assisted death is based on three of the explicit rights in the Montana Constitution; equal protection, personal dignity, and individual privacy. The right to privacy and equal protection are also in the U.S. Constitution, therefore, Mr. Baxter should be able to do as he pleases in the privacy of his own home. The state denying Baxter these natural rights, brings up more issues besides the right to die. More importantly, it was also clear that throughout the case Mr. Baxter was diagnosed with lymphocytic leukemia and was terminally ill. The District Court of the First Judicial District agreed and held that a competent, terminally ill patient has a right to die with dignity and appealed the case.

The Supreme Court has observed that a method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment if it inherently involves “torture or a lingering death” or is “inhuman and barbarous.” This was brought into question in the case of Glossip V. Gross when Oklahoma introduced the drug midazolam as a new execution drug. The case also brings into question whether the court is required to supply a form of execution when the government cannot find one itself. In Baze v. Rees the three-drug protocol was observed for lethal injection by at least 30 states, where barbiturate, an anesthesia that causes the person to go unconscious and two other drugs which paralyzed the prisoner eventually causes them to go into cardiac arrest.

The name of the case is US v. Hinckley, 625 F. Supp. 2d 3 - Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia 2009 the case was decided in the year 2009, the court that heard this case was the United States District Court, District Court of Colombia. This case is a continuation of the original.

The United States of America as they stand today are a result of the evolution of the frameworks our founding fathers set in to place long ago. Among them were the Articles of Confederation, the Virginia and New Jersey plans, the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution. Beginning with the original frame work for the government of the United States, the Articles of Confederation, established in 1781, formed a firm league of friendship among the states, instead of a government for the people (Dye, Gaddie 66). The United States fared well under the Articles of Confederation. With success in gaining independence from Great Britain, gaining France as an ally and establishing a viable peace.

The most important issue that must be addressed in this case is the principle of the “evolving standards of decency” and the uses of a national consensus. The “evolving standards of decency” were developed by Trop v. Dulles and have been implemented in one way or another in all of the precedents dealing with “cruel and unusual” punishment. It is important to treat these principles as an important aspect of “cruel and unusual” punishment jurisprudence, therefore turning from these set of principles would be foolish and a disregard for every precedent. However, it is important to acknowledge that each case satisfies the standards by using a different method; some use the presence or lack of state legislature as a judgment of consensus while others look at foreign countries.

School officials are not allowed to conduct searches on students without probable cause; and random searches are not permissible according to The Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that a person has the right to be secure in their homes, and personal effects and to prevent them against un-probable search cases. For example, these laws and policies affect school leaders decision-making procedures by stating that school leaders must have probable cause to conduct searches against students for specific incidents and locations including any property to be taken from the students. For example, in the case of New Jersey v T. L. O. (1985) addressed the issue of can a search by a school official be called a "search" based on the Fourth Amendment

In that case, the Supreme Court held that prison staff (whether doctors or officers or any others) violated the Eighth Amendment if they were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of prisoners.

The Constitution of the United States is the concrete platform that the nation is built upon which contains fundamental principles in which our nation is governed by. However, much of the Constitution is very ambiguous which leads to controversy in the court room. For example, the Eighth Amendment which states that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (Baltzell). The first part of the Eighth Amendment protects accused citizens of the United States from unreasonable and extreme amounts of bail that would prevent them from being released from pretrial containment and it also limits the amount of a fine that can be given to a convicted person (8th Amendment)(Kurt). The

The Eighth Amendment was created to prohibit cruel punishments that the colonists would receive from the British. The British brought colonists over to an unfair trial and then received punishment that sometimes would be death. The writers of the wanted to make sure that the colonists received the fair trial and fair punishment they deserve. The Eight Amendment was ratified in December 5, 1791 as a part of the Bill of Rights. The Eighth Amendment has not been changed since the ratification in 1791.

The court itself was appalled, because this scenario was a contradiction towards them. Everyone has the right to have proper medical care, being a regular citizen or a prisoner justice has to be given to both. In this case it wasn’t, Tomcik didn’t receive proper care which resulted in the consequences stated. A doctor has to be alert and careful of what they are writing down in their reports, the confusion between wrists and breast, this

Although, the term “cruel and unusual punishment” is constantly changing as society develops. For example when the amendment was first made cruel and unusual punishment at the time was being burned at the stake or being tortured. Today cruel and unusual punishment can include the death penalty and it was not until a little after the 1970s when the death penalty was considered a part of cruel and unusual punishment. The main use of the eighth amendment in court is for cruel and unusual punishment. Some cases that use the eighth amendment are the Roper v. Simmons, Hudson v. McMillian, and the Woodson v. North

Cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional. The constitution granted the american people basic rights and protections the eighth amendment is one of them. The eighth amendment bans all methods of punishment that may be considered cruel and unusual. The constitution is not flexible and demands zero errors. States are breaking this constitutional right by using experimental drugs that have led to botched executions.