Andrew is sentenced to death for torture. In Andrew’s state, an “eye-for-an-eye” statute mandates punishment that mimics the defendant's crime. Pursuant to this statute, Andrew will be tortured to death. Is the state’s eye-for-an eye statute constitutional under the Eighth Amendment? Why or why not? (3.6.9).
Criminal Law Exercise #2: The Menendez Brothers
Review the case of Menendez v. Terhune, 422 F.3d 1012 (2005). The links to the case are in the Introduction to Criminal Law book (5.2.6). After reviewing all relevant materials, answer the following question. Your response must be in APA format.
Do you think the Menendez case should have been treated as a "battered child syndrome" case, easing the requirement of imminence and allowing jury instruction on imperfect self-defense? Why or why not?
Prohibition of Barbaric Methods: The Eighth Amendment bans methods of punishment that involve torture or unnecessary cruelty (Karge, 1978; Mosteller, 1996). Early Supreme Court cases affirmed that the Eighth Amendment prohibits punishments involving "torture or a lingering death," deeming them "barbarous" or "brutal" (Ewer, 1980; Karge, 1978). Torturing a defendant to death, regardless of the severity of the crime, is a method of execution that has been historically and categorically forbidden as "barbarous" and would unquestionably fall under the definition of cruel and unusual punishment (Karge, 1978; Mosteller, 1996).
Evolving Standards of Decency (Disproportionality): The clause also mandates that punishment must be proportional to the crime committed, reflecting the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" (Lutz, 2004). While the lex talionis (eye-for-an-eye) principle, an ancient concept of retribution, may have originally been intended to limit the upper bounds of punishment, modern Eighth Amendment jurisprudence rejects the notion that a state may use the exact same barbaric means of a crime as a means of punishment (Karge, 1978). An execution must be accomplished through relatively instantaneous means, and any method that inherently involves torture or the "purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering" is deemed excessive and unconstitutional (Karge, 1978; Lutz, 2004).
Therefore, the method of punishment—torture to death—violates the core prohibition against barbaric and inhumane treatment, making the statute unconstitutional.
👨⚖️ Criminal Law Exercise: The Menendez Brothers
Analysis of Menendez v. Terhune (2005)
The case of Menendez v. Terhune concerns the conviction of Lyle and Erik Menendez for the first-degree murder of their parents. Their defense was based on self-defense, arguing they feared their parents were about to kill them following years of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. The trial judge refused to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ultimately upheld the state court's decision, finding that the state court was not objectively unreasonable in concluding that the brothers' actions did not satisfy the legal requirements for imperfect self-defense under California law (Menendez v. Terhune, 422 F.3d 1012, 1029 (9th Cir. 2005)).
Should the Case Have Been Treated as a "Battered Child Syndrome" Case, Easing the Imminence Requirement and Allowing Imperfect Self-Defense Instruction?
I believe the Menendez case should have been treated with consideration for "Battered Child Syndrome" (BCS) principles, which would have supported easing the strict requirement of imminence and made a stronger case for the jury receiving an instruction on imperfect self-defense.
Justification: The Impact of Chronic Abuse
Mitigation of Imminence: Traditional self-defense requires the defendant to reasonably believe the danger is imminent. However, "battered child syndrome," similar to "battered woman syndrome," is a form of "group character" or "social framework" evidence that explains how long-term abuse can alter a person's perceptions and behavior (Mosteller, 1996; Buchhandler-Raphael, 2017). A child who has endured years of physical, sexual, and psychological torture from a parent often develops a state of fear-based provocation, leading them to perceive a threat of future violence even when the abuser is not actively attacking (Buchhandler-Raphael, 2017). Easing the imminence requirement would recognize that their decision to kill stemmed from a persistent, overwhelming belief—based on their history—that their life was continually in danger, a situation distinct from a sudden, unprovoked killing.
Support for Imperfect Self-Defense: Imperfect self-defense is a mitigating doctrine that can reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter when the defendant subjectively (but unreasonably) believes that deadly force is necessary (Buchhandler-Raphael, 2017).
Subjective Belief: The core of the Menendez defense was the brothers' testimony that they genuinely feared their father was planning to kill them and that the murders were a preemptive strike based on that terror (Menendez v. Terhune, 422 F.3d at 1029). BCS evidence would support the subjective reasonableness of this fear, even if an "ordinary person" or the jury viewed the threat as not strictly "imminent" at the moment of the killing. The extensive history of abuse serves as the factual basis for the brothers' subjectively honest, though potentially unreasonable, belief in the necessity of their actions (Mosteller, 1996).