IN RE KEMMLER 136 U.S 436 1890 IN RE KEMMLER U.S CONSTITUTION U.S GOV'T JUDICIAL HUMAN RIGHTS U.S GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTION SIGNIFICANCE THIS RULING ESTABLISHED THAT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT DID NOT APPLY TO THE DEATH PENALTY ITSELF BUT TO THE MEANS OF EXECUTION CHOSEN IN THIS CASE THE SUPREME COURT DETERMINED ELECTROCUTION WAS A RELATIVELY HUMANE WAY OF EXECUTING CRIMINALS BACKGROUND WILLIAM KEMMLER WAS TRIED AND FOUND GUILTY OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER HE WAS SENTENCED TO DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH A NEW YORK STATE STATUTE KEMMLER'S ATTORNEY ROGER SHERMAN FILED A PETITION AGAINST THE STATUTE CLAIMING THAT THE SENTENCE WAS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT DECISION THIS CASE WAS ARGUED AND DECIDED ON MAY 19 1890 CHIEF JUSTICE MELVILLE FULLER SPOKE FOR THE UNANIMOUS COURT WHICH HELD THAT THIS SENTENCE WAS NOT CRUEL OR UNUSUAL THE COURT JUDGED THAT ELECTROCUTION A RELATIVELY NEW MODE OF EXECUTION AT THE TIME WAS THE MOST HUMANE MEANS OF CARRYING OUT THE DEATH PENALTY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE ONLY TWO YEARS BEFORE THE NEW YORK EXECUTION LAWS HAD BEEN MODIFIED TO REQUIRE THIS NEW METHOD AS A REPLACEMENT FOR THE OLD METHOD OF HANGING EXCERPT FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT PUNISHMENTS ARE CRUEL WHEN THEY INVOLVE TORTURE OR A LINGERING DEATH BUT THE PUNISHMENT OF DEATH IS NOT CRUEL WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT WORD AS USED IN THE CONSTITUTION IT IMPLIES THERE IS SOMETHING INHUMANE AND BARBAROUS SOMETHING MORE THAN THE MERE EXTINGUISHMENT OF LIFE
