Also known as: proportionality principle · proportionality
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A requirement that government-imposed conditions on land-use permits bear a rough proportionality to the projected impacts of the proposed development. The government must demonstrate an individualized determination that the exaction is related both in nature and extent to the development's effects.
A requirement that government-imposed conditions on land-use permits bear a rough proportionality to the projected impacts of the proposed development. The government must demonstrate an individualized determination that the exaction is related both in nature and extent to the development's effects.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The requirement that the severity of punishment must be graduated and proportioned to the offense committed. Punishments that are grossly disproportionate to the crime violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The requirement that the severity of punishment must be graduated and proportioned to the offense committed. Punishments that are grossly disproportionate to the crime violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Paula Pierce sought a building permit to expand her commercial property. The city conditioned approval on her dedicating a strip of land for a public bike path. The path's scale far exceeded any traffic increase the expansion would generate. The court held the demand violated the principle of proportionality because the city failed to show a rough match between the exaction and the project's effects.
Yes. The requirement of rough proportionality extends to demands for money as well as dedications of real property when imposed as conditions on land-use permits.
Supporting sources
Philip Powell received a life sentence without parole after his seventh nonviolent felony conviction for passing a bad check. His prior offenses were all minor and nonviolent. The court applied the principle of proportionality and found the sentence grossly disproportionate to the crime given its passive nature and the defendant's limited criminal history.
Paul Peterson challenged his death sentence by presenting statistical evidence that race influenced capital sentencing outcomes in his jurisdiction. The evidence showed disparities but did not prove purposeful discrimination in his own case. The court held that the principle of proportionality did not require invalidation of the sentence on the basis of aggregate statistical patterns alone.
Pamela Phillips was sentenced to death after a jury found her guilty of murder during a robbery. The sentencing procedures included guided discretion and consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors. The court upheld the sentence because the principle of proportionality permits capital punishment for murder when the procedures sufficiently channel discretion.
Pearl Porter received an enhanced sentence under mandatory guidelines for a drug offense. The guidelines produced a term far longer than the facts of her limited role warranted. The court applied the principle of proportionality and concluded that treating the guidelines as mandatory violated the Sixth Amendment by imposing punishment disproportionate to the jury's findings.
Paige Porter obtained a large compensatory award against an insurer for bad-faith claims handling. The jury added punitive damages more than one hundred times the compensatory amount. The court applied the principle of proportionality and reduced the punitive award because the ratio far exceeded constitutional limits on punishment relative to the harm caused.
Courts examine the gravity of the offense, the harshness of the penalty, sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction, and sentences imposed for the same crime in other jurisdictions.
Supporting sources
No. The Eighth Amendment does not mandate that state appellate courts compare a death sentence with penalties in similar cases before upholding it.
Supporting sources
…where it lies. Katzenbach , supra , at 326. But the distinction exists and must be observed. There must be a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end. Lacking such a connection, legislation may become substantive in operation and effect. This case…