Andrew is sentenced to death for torture. In Andrew’s state, an “eye-for-an-eye” statute mandates punishment that mimics the defendant's crime. Pursuant to this statute, Andrew will be tortured to death. Is the state’s eye-for-an eye statute constitutional under the Eighth Amendment? Why or why not? (3.6.9).
Review the case of Menendez v. Terhune, 422 F.3d 1012 (2005). The links to the case are in the Introduction to Criminal Law book (5.2.6). After reviewing all relevant materials, answer the following question. Your response must be in APA format.
Do you think the Menendez case should have been treated as a "battered child syndrome" case, easing the requirement of imminence and allowing jury instruction on imperfect self-defense? Why or why not?
In Furman v. Georgia (1972) and Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the Court established that punishments must comport with the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. Torturing a defendant to death, even as a mirrored punishment (lex talionis), falls far outside these contemporary standards of decency.
Proportionality: While the death penalty for murder/torture may be proportionate to the crime itself, the method of execution must be proportional to the legitimate penological goals (deterrence and retribution). A punishment that is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime, or is unnecessarily cruel, is unconstitutional. A death sentence accomplished through torture is unnecessarily cruel and serves no legitimate purpose that cannot be met by a swift, humane execution.
In summary, the method of execution (torture) is prohibited because it is inherently cruel and unusual, regardless of the severity of the crime committed.
Analysis of Menendez v. Terhune (2005) and Battered Child Syndrome
Whether the Menendez case should have been treated as a "battered child syndrome" case, thereby easing the requirement of imminence and allowing for an imperfect self-defense instruction, is a complex legal and psychological issue.
Response
The Menendez case involves two adult sons who planned and executed the murder of their parents, arguing they did so out of fear stemming from long-term abuse.
I argue that the Menendez case should have been treated as an analogue to a "battered child syndrome" (BCS) case for the purpose of jury instructions on imperfect self-defense.
Rationale
Eroding Imminence for Chronic Abuse: Traditional self-defense requires the threat to be imminent (immediate). Cases involving chronic abuse, such as battered women or battered child syndrome, recognize that long-term, inescapable abuse creates a state of learned helplessness and a heightened perception of danger, making the imminence requirement difficult and often unfair to apply rigidly. The threat, while not always immediate in the moment of the crime, is constant and systemic.
Relevance of Psychological State: The Menendez brothers' defense centered on the psychological impact of years of severe physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. Allowing an instruction based on BCS principles would acknowledge that their state of mind—characterized by fear and a perceived lack of escape—was relevant to the issue of whether they genuinely believed they were in peril, even if that belief was objectively unreasonable (the standard for imperfect self-defense).
Sample Answer
Eighth Amendment Analysis of "Eye-for-an-Eye" Statute
The state's "eye-for-an-eye" statute mandating that Andrew be tortured to death as punishment for torture is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments." This prohibition has evolved through Supreme Court interpretation.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The Supreme Court has consistently held that the method of execution must not involve unnecessary pain or suffering. Torture, by its very definition, is a protracted, unnecessarily painful, and savage method of punishment that violates the core principle of human dignity embodied by the Eighth Amendment.