Carol Steiker

And the Supreme Court said, that's cruel and unusual punishment.

And to be honest, Justice Frankfurter dissented in saying, well, we execute deserters. So are you really saying that citizenship stripping is a fate worse than death? But that's what the court says in Trope v. Dulles, that citizenship stripping is cruel and unusual, even if they said we're not at this point willing to say that death is cruel and unusual.

And to be honest, Justice Frankfurter dissented in saying, well, we execute deserters. So are you really saying that citizenship stripping is a fate worse than death? But that's what the court says in Trope v. Dulles, that citizenship stripping is cruel and unusual, even if they said we're not at this point willing to say that death is cruel and unusual.

And to be honest, Justice Frankfurter dissented in saying, well, we execute deserters. So are you really saying that citizenship stripping is a fate worse than death? But that's what the court says in Trope v. Dulles, that citizenship stripping is cruel and unusual, even if they said we're not at this point willing to say that death is cruel and unusual.

They said the meaning of the Eighth Amendment— should come from, and this is language the court thereafter repeats over and over, the meaning comes from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.

They said the meaning of the Eighth Amendment— should come from, and this is language the court thereafter repeats over and over, the meaning comes from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.

They said the meaning of the Eighth Amendment— should come from, and this is language the court thereafter repeats over and over, the meaning comes from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.

Now, that's not a lot clearer than cruel and unusual, but it is. bakes into the test the idea that these standards change. They evolve over time. And that they evolve in a progressive way, presumably toward decency and toward less harshness and punishment.

Now, that's not a lot clearer than cruel and unusual, but it is. bakes into the test the idea that these standards change. They evolve over time. And that they evolve in a progressive way, presumably toward decency and toward less harshness and punishment.

Now, that's not a lot clearer than cruel and unusual, but it is. bakes into the test the idea that these standards change. They evolve over time. And that they evolve in a progressive way, presumably toward decency and toward less harshness and punishment.

So after World War II, not just in the United States, but in Europe and around the world, the death penalty really went into a deep nosedive. I think there was some real skepticism about the authority of governments to be able to order executions. in the wake of the fall of Hitler and Mussolini. So the death penalty was very much questioned.

So after World War II, not just in the United States, but in Europe and around the world, the death penalty really went into a deep nosedive. I think there was some real skepticism about the authority of governments to be able to order executions. in the wake of the fall of Hitler and Mussolini. So the death penalty was very much questioned.

So after World War II, not just in the United States, but in Europe and around the world, the death penalty really went into a deep nosedive. I think there was some real skepticism about the authority of governments to be able to order executions. in the wake of the fall of Hitler and Mussolini. So the death penalty was very much questioned.

It was forbidden in Germany and Italy's post-World War II constitutions. And even in the United States, It had really begun to fall into disfavor. And one of many reasons that it fell into disfavor, but a very significant one, was its racially discriminatory use, especially in the American South.

It was forbidden in Germany and Italy's post-World War II constitutions. And even in the United States, It had really begun to fall into disfavor. And one of many reasons that it fell into disfavor, but a very significant one, was its racially discriminatory use, especially in the American South.

It was forbidden in Germany and Italy's post-World War II constitutions. And even in the United States, It had really begun to fall into disfavor. And one of many reasons that it fell into disfavor, but a very significant one, was its racially discriminatory use, especially in the American South.

They said, you know what? We should make this our next big thing. We should mount a constitutional litigation campaign to end the American death penalty as a matter of racial justice.

They said, you know what? We should make this our next big thing. We should mount a constitutional litigation campaign to end the American death penalty as a matter of racial justice.

They said, you know what? We should make this our next big thing. We should mount a constitutional litigation campaign to end the American death penalty as a matter of racial justice.

They sent like a kind of sort of form of freedom riders. They sent a bunch of young people down to the south to go to courthouses. This is before computers. If you wanted to find evidence about cases, you had to go to the courthouses and pull records.