Solem v. Helm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Solem v. Helm

Argued March 29, 1983
Decided June 28, 1983

Full case name:	Solem, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary v. Helm

Citations:	463 U.S. 277
Prior history:	Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 684 F.2d 582.

Subsequent history:	684 F.2d 582, affirmed.

Holding

The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments prohibits not only barbaric punishments, but also sentences that are disproportionate to the crime.

Court membership

Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices: William J. Brennan, Jr., Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor

Case opinions

Majority by: Powell
Joined by: Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens
Dissent by: Burger
Joined by: White, Rehnquist, O'Connor

Laws applied

U.S. Const. amend. VIII

Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case concerned with the scope of the Eighth Amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Mr. Helm, who had written a check from a fictitious account and had reached his seventh nonviolent felony conviction since 1964, received a mandatory sentence, under South Dakota law at that time, to life in prison with no parole. Petitioner Mr. Solem was the warden of the South Dakota State Penitentiary at the time.

The Court overturned the sentence on the grounds that it was "cruel and unusual". Justice Powell wrote for the five-member majority, while Chief Justice Burger wrote for the four-member dissent. Justice Powell reasoned that Helm had "received the penultimate sentence [South Dakota did not have the death penalty] for relatively minor criminal conduct." Chief Burger's concerns reflected his strict constructionist attitude: "Suppose several states punish severely a crime that the Court views as trivial or petty? I can see no limiting principle in the Court's holding."

The language of the opinion, however, refrained from striking down state statutes setting minimum sentencing guidelines for recidivism. The majority opinion only called for exceptions to the statutes protecting the constitutional freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.