eighth amendment — Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

Hostile Architecture meets COVID-19: Why Anti-Homelessness Laws Must be Re-evaluated

In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Martin v. Boise (2018), which asserted that “an ordinance violates the Eighth Amendment insofar as it imposes criminal sanctions against homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors, on public property, when no alternative shelter is available to them.” [1] The Supreme Court’s refusal renders the Martin decision final, setting a national precedent for the civil rights of those experiencing homelessness. However, the increased presence of hostile, or anti-homelessness, architecture in urban areas still inhibits the homeless individuals’ access to public spaces, essentially placing criminal sanctions on one’s status of homelessness. The COVID-19 pandemic increases the vulnerability of the homeless population by increasing financial instability and limiting shelter capacity. The Martin v. Boise decision does not explicitly protect those experiencing homelessness from anti-homeless architecture; however, its basis on the Eighth Amendment’s protection from cruel and unusual punishment suggests that hostile architecture similarly violates the Eighth Amendment rights of those experiencing homelessness. Hostile architecture must be explicitly challenged in courts to protect the rights of those experiencing homelessness during this particularly exigent time.

Munirat SuleimanJanuary 18, 2022hostile architecture, homelessness, eighth amendment, COVID-19

Locked Away for Life: Juvenile Life Without Parole in the American Criminal Justice System

While the Miller and Montgomery rulings have put the state of juvenile life without parole sentences under heavy scrutiny, their effects have not been uniform across the country. Although states such as Iowa and Kansas have deemed life without parole sentences as unconstitutional and have even limited mandatory minimum sentences for juveniles, twenty-nine states have maintained their rights to these inhumane sentences. I

Tanya ReynaJanuary 9, 2019criminal justice, supreme court, eighth amendment, juvenile, criminalComment

Mitigation, Time, and the Immorality of Death

The death penalty is a widely contested form of punishment plaguing legal theorists, juries, and society as a whole today. Current death penalty jurisprudence in the United States, which developed as a reaction to the brief abolition of the death penalty following Furman v. Georgia in 1972, has created an arbitrary and immoral system that relies upon a balance between aggravating and mitigating factors. An aggravating factor is “any fact or circumstance that increases the severity or culpability of a criminal act,” [1] and a mitigating factor is “any fact or circumstance that lessens the severity or culpability of a criminal act.”

Revising the Approach of Mandatory Minimums

The Eighth Amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” This promise of protection against unjust punishment remains relevant and is subject to reinterpretation, especially in light of the drastic changes to the American penal system since the nation’s founding. Although directly contradictory case precedent exists that demands sentencing practices consider the character and actions of individual offenders, mandatory minimum sentencing remains permissible and frequently practiced.