ABSTRACT
The principle of proportionality of sentences, also known as the doctrine of excessiveness, is rooted in the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments. In addition, however, if the amendment's ban is read in conjunction with the prohibition on excessive fines and bails, the amendment seems to support the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The Supreme Court first considered the issue of proportionality under the Eighth Amendment in O'Neil v. Vermont, 144 US 323. Although the majority decision rejected the proportionality argument, the case is known more for Justice Stephen J. Field's dissenting opinion, in which he argued that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition was directed against "all punishments which by their excessive length or severity are greatly disproportioned to the offenses charged." For nearly a century after the Eighth Amendment was passed, the proportionality requirement was found by many courts not to have any relation to the ban on cruel and unusual punishments.
