Friday, February 22, 2019

Confronting Government's Revenue Addiction

The forfeiture court at Philadelphia's City Hall had neither judge nor jury.

Now the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits "Cruel and unusual punishments" and "Excessive fines." But what is excessive and whether the constitutional prohibition against such fines applies to the states has been a matter of debate.

Previously the U.S. Supreme Court had left open the question of whether the Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines applied to the states.

Writing for the Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declared that the "Historical and logical case for concluding that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is overwhelming."

Quoting from legal precedent, she put her finger on the nub of the problem when she wrote that, even absent political motive, "Fines may be employed 'in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence,' for 'fines are a source of revenue,' while other forms of punishment 'cost a state money.'".

Justice Ginsburg recognized that "[a]ll 50 states have a constitutional provision prohibiting the imposition of excessive fines either directly or by requiring proportionality.

Finally, the question of whether the seizure of Timbs' Land Rover constituted an excessive fine was remanded to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of the Court's ruling.

https://spectator.org/confronting-governments-revenue-addiction/

No comments: