Cruel & Unusual Punishment Lawyer in CA | BNCL Law Firm Placeholder canvas

Cruel & Unusual Punishment Lawyer in CA

Under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, everyone in the country is protected from cruel and unusual punishment regardless of their gender, age, or immigration status. In its simplest terms, cruel and unusual punishment is any government-imposed penalty that is barbaric, torturous, or much too severe for the offense that was committed. California law also includes a statute regarding cruel and unusual punishment that largely mirrors federal law. Below, our California cruel and unusual punishment lawyer outlines when this type of behavior may have occurred, and how you can make it right.

Alt Text!

The actual definition of cruel and unusual punishment has been debated in state and federal courts for many years. One of the biggest hurdles the courts had when defining such punishment was the concept that any penalty, regardless of how severe or how cruel, could be considered acceptable as long as it was “usual.”

In 1958, Chief Justice Earl Warren provided a more practical application to determine when cruel and unusual punishment occurs. This was the evolving standards of decency test. This test measures a punishment against an evolving standard of decency that marks the progress of a maturing society. It is this approach that the courts still use today in cases involving cruel and unusual punishment.

Under the evolving standards of decency test, it is not only the punishment that is considered but also the nature of the offense. To determine if a penalty is so severe it can be considered cruel and unusual punishment, the courts consider the penalties levied against other offenders convicted of similar crimes in the state, as well as the penalties for the same offense in different states. 

When there are crimes of a more serious nature than what the defendant is accused of and those offenses hold less severe sentences, the court will likely strike the sentence. A sentence may also be stricken when other states have less severe penalties for the same offense.

Still, it is important to note that a penalty is not automatically considered cruel and unusual punishment simply because it is severe. Under the Eighth Amendment, only grossly excessive penalties are prohibited. No set number of years in jail or prison is prohibited, and the death penalty is also not considered inherently cruel or unusual, even though California has not carried out any executions since March of 2019 when Governor Gavin Newsom ordered an official moratorium on capital punishment.

If you believe that you or someone you love was the victim of cruel and unusual punishment, you need sound legal advice. At Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy, our California cruel and unusual punishment lawyers can advise you of your rights and help you hold the government accountable for its actions. Call us now at 510-839-5200 or contact us online to schedule a consultation and learn more about how we can help.

How can we help?

    Subject*

    Please describe your issue

    Our Offices

    Northern California Office Airport Corporate Centre
    7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120
    Oakland, CA 94621
    Ph: (510) 839-5200
    Southern California Office
    9701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
    Beverly Hills, CA 90212
    Ph: (310) 601-7070
    For press inquiries,
    please contact:
    Lee Houskeeper
    newsservice@aol.com
    Ph: (415)654-9141

    Our Offices

    Northern California Office Airport Corporate Centre
    7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120
    Oakland, CA 94621
    Ph: (510) 839-5200
    Southern California Office
    9701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
    Beverly Hills, CA 90212
    Ph: (310) 601-7070
    For press inquiries,
    please contact:
    Lee Houskeeper
    newsservice@aol.com
    Ph: (415)654-9141
    Case Results

    Reginald Oliver v. City of Oakland

    Oakland Police keep fabricating evidence and lying about minorities to arrest and prosecute them for supposed “gang” crimes, in violation of a settlement that prohibits …

    Read More
    Named plaintiff Reginald Oliver claims the Oakland PD continues violating the Constitution, in defiance of the settlement in Delphine Allen e al. v. City of Oakland, USDC No. C-00-4599 TEH, also known as "The Riders" litigation. Read Full Course
    John Burris
    Jane Smith v. City of Oakland

    Racial profiling of Asian women by police officer resulting in a class action complaint for damages, declaratory and injunctive relief

    Read More
    Finding evidence about defendant's post-conviction parole violation unfairly prejudicial "since the jury could have construed that parole violation as character evidence in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)" Read Full Course
    Rodney King
    Rodney King v. City of Los Angeles

    Rodney King has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have Judge John G. Davies disqualified from presiding at the trial of …

    Read More
    Rodney King waited too long to file a malpractice suit against the first of 27 lawyers who represented him in connection with the infamous beating he suffered from Los Angeles police in 1991, this district’s Court of Appeal ruled yesterday. The ruling by Div. Two affirmed Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ann Kough’s grant of summary judgment to Steven Lerman. King earlier this year dismissed his appeal of Kough’s ruling in favor of two other lawyers sued in the case, Federico Sayre and John Burris. Read Full Course
    FEATURED News & Updates

    Civil rights lawyer John Burris confronts police narratives

    Written by Janie Har, AP researcher Rhonda Shafner also contributed to this report. To read on AP News click here OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — Before …

    Watch our video