In Re Kemmler
10 S. Ct. 930, 136 U.S. 436, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2223 (1890)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments does not directly apply to state governments. While the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from depriving a person of life without due process of law, a state's legislatively-mandated method of execution is not cruel and unusual unless it involves torture or a lingering death.
Facts:
- The New York legislature, seeking a more humane method of execution than hanging, passed a law making electrocution the state's sole method of capital punishment.
- The law applied to all capital crimes committed on or after January 1, 1889.
- On March 29, 1889, William Kemmler murdered Matilda Zeigler in Erie County, New York.
- Following his conviction for murder, Kemmler was sentenced to death under the new law, making him the first person to be sentenced to execution by electrocution.
Procedural Posture:
- William Kemmler was indicted, tried, and convicted of first-degree murder in the New York Court of Oyer and Terminer of Erie County.
- The trial court sentenced Kemmler to death by electrocution.
- Kemmler's representative filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a New York county court, arguing the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment.
- After taking extensive testimony on the effects of electrocution, the county judge dismissed the writ and remanded Kemmler to custody.
- Kemmler appealed to the New York Supreme Court (an intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the county judge's order.
- Kemmler then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court), which affirmed the lower court's judgment.
- Kemmler then made an application to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of error to review the judgment of the New York courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law mandating execution by electrocution, a new and previously unused method, constitute a cruel and unusual punishment that deprives a convicted person of life without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Fuller
No, a state law mandating execution by electrocution does not constitute a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments is a restriction on the federal government, not the states. While the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects against state actions, it does not incorporate this specific prohibition. Punishments are constitutionally cruel only when they involve torture or a lingering death, not merely because they are a new or 'unusual' method of extinguishing life. The Court presumes that the New York legislature acted with the humane purpose of finding a less barbarous method of execution, and this legislative determination is owed deference. Therefore, the state has not abridged Kemmler's privileges or immunities or deprived him of due process of law.
Analysis:
This case established significant judicial deference to state legislative decisions regarding methods of execution. By ruling that the Eighth Amendment did not apply to the states and that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause only forbids methods involving torture or lingering death, the Court set a very high bar for challenging new execution technologies. This decision affirmed the states' power to innovate in the administration of capital punishment, as long as the intent is humane, and shaped constitutional challenges to execution methods for decades before the doctrine of incorporation eventually applied the Eighth Amendment to the states.
