Significance: This case gave the Supreme Court the unusual opportunity to further define protections given in the Bill of Rights. This decision gave a broad reading of constitutional protections that was based on current needs and beliefs rather than past formulas and earlier court decisions.
Background: Paul Weems, an American officer in the Philippines, was convicted under Philippine law for falsifying documents. The Philippine court sentenced Weems to 15 years on a chain gang, along with a heavy fine. Weems appealed, claiming that the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. At that time the Philippines had a bill of rights modeled after the U.S. Bill of Rights and was under American control, making it subject to decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court’s interpretation in the case would clarify not only the Filipino bill of rights but also the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Decision: This case was argued November 30­December 1, 1909, and decided on May 2, 1910, by a vote of 4 to 2. Justice Joseph McKenna spoke for the Court. Because the penalty for Weems’s crime was out of proportion compared to the penalties set for other, more serious crimes, the Court found that the punishment was cruel and unusual. The Court ordered that Weems be released. Justices Horace Lurton and William Moody did not participate in the ruling, and Justice David Brewer’s seat was vacant. Justices Edward White and Oliver Wendell Holmes dissented, arguing that constitutional protection was being interpreted too widely and that the judiciary was interfering with the law’s function.
