-
Period: to
Pre- Robinson v California
-
Powell v. Alabama
This case was one of the earliest examples of the Supreme Court applying a federal constitutional right to the states. The Court ruled that, in capital cases, states must provide counsel to defendants who cannot afford one. This decision began the process of selective incorporation, where certain rights from the Bill of Rights were applied to the states through the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. -
Palko v. Connecticut
This case introduced the idea of selective incorporation, setting criteria for which protections in the Bill of Rights were considered fundamental and thus applicable to the states. The ruling held that double jeopardy was not a fundamental right. Although the specific protection wasn’t incorporated, the decision laid the groundwork for future cases like Robinson v. California by recognizing that some rights are fundamental and should be protected from state infringement. -
Mapp v. Ohio
A landmark decision where the Supreme Court applied the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule to the states. This was a key stepping stone, as it demonstrated the Court’s willingness to expand the protections of the Bill of Rights using the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The incorporation of the exclusionary rule set a precedent for further cases involving state laws, including Robinson v. California. -
Robinson v. California (1962)
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a California law saying being an addict is illegal violated the 8 Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Robinson spent 90 days in jail simply for being addicted, The Court used the 14th Amendment to apply the Eighth Amendment's protection. This case marked an important step in the incorporation process, ensuring that states, like the federal government, could not punish someone simply for a status or condition. -
Period: to
Post - Robinson v California
-
Witherspoon v. Illinois:
This case built on the precedent set by Robinson by reinforcing the application of the Eighth Amendment’s protections at the state level. The ruling limited the ability of states to exclude jurors opposed to the death penalty, ensuring fairer jury selection processes under the 14th Amendment. -
Revision of California’s Drug Laws:
Following the principles established in Robinson v. California, California began to shift its approach to drug addiction from punitive to rehabilitative. In the early 1980s, California revised some of its drug laws to focus more on treatment programs rather than incarceration, a trend influenced by the ruling’s emphasis on the Eighth Amendment. -
Harmelin v. Michigan
The Supreme Court revisited the issue of cruel and unusual punishment, particularly regarding mandatory life sentences for drug offenses. Although the Court upheld the sentence, the debate highlighted the enduring impact of Robinson v. California on how the justice system interprets punishments under the Eighth Amendment. -
Lawrence v. Texas
Although not directly related to the Eighth Amendment, this case utilized the reasoning in Robinson to strike down state laws that criminalized consensual behavior based on a person’s status (in this case, sexual orientation). The Court’s decision continued the tradition of using the 14th Amendment to protect individuals from laws that penalize them for their status, a key concept from Robinson.