Solem v. Helm

Petitioner
Herman Solem, Warden
Respondent
Jerry Buckley Helm
Petitioner's Claim
That according to South Dakota law repeat felons must serve life in prison without parole. Helm had been convicted of six crimes prior to his conviction for writing a bad check for $100.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Mark V. Meierhenry
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
John J. Burnett
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (writing for the Court), John Paul Stevens
Justices Dissenting
Warren E. Burger, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
28 June 1983
Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the court of appeals' decision that life imprisonment without parole for passing a bogus check constituted a disproportionate punishment, which the Eighth Amendment prohibits given the crime.
Significance
This case along with a host of others helped the Supreme Court define which punishments fit which crimes. The case also calls into question blanket "threestrikes and your out" laws where states impose life sentences on anyone withthree or more felonies as well as "petty with a prior" laws where anyone previously convicted of a felony is charged with a felony for committing a pettytheft.
The Origins of Proportional Punishment
Dating back to the Magna Carta (1215), early English law expressed deep concern for proportionate punishment. Later the English Bill of Rights included the ban on cruel and unusual punishment, which the United States adopted for its Eighth Amendment. The prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment includessentences disproportionate to the offense as well as barbaric punishment.
For over a century, the Supreme Court recognized the ban on extreme forms ofpunishment that significantly outweighed the crime. For example, in Weemsv. United States, (1910) the Court opposed a disproportionate sentence issued by the lower court. In this case a defendant received a 15-year sentenceto hard labor for falsifying a public document.
The Case of Jerry Helm
Under South Dakota state law, habitual felons with more than three felonies can face life imprisonment without parole. The respondent, Jerry Helm, had sixprior felonies to his record: three convictions of third-degree burglary in1964, 1966, and 1969 as well as one count each of grand larceny in 1973, drunk driving in 1975, and obtaining money under false pretenses in 1972. However, Helm had committed no violent crimes and his seventh conviction for the "noaccount" check also was nonviolent. The state typically issued a five-year sentence and a $5000 fine for this crime. Nonetheless, the South Dakota district court gave Helm a life sentence, explaining to Helm: "I think you certainly earned this sentence, and certainly proven that you're an habitual criminal, and that would indicate that you're beyond rehabilitation and that the onlyprudent thing to do is lock you up for the rest of your natural life . . . "Helm began his sentence in 1979.
After serving two years of his sentence, Helm asked the governor of South Dakota to reduce his sentence to one with a definite number of years--his only option for a reduced sentence, but the governor denied his request. Subsequently, Helm petitioned the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota,arguing that his sentence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his Eighth Amendment right; however, the district court also refused to reduce the sentence citing Rummel v. Estelle (1980). The court did acknowledge that the penalty was extreme. In Rummel v. Estelle, the court in Texas sentenced Rummel to life in prison for his third offense: obtaining $120.75 under false pretenses, because he had two prior felonies. Helm then took his case to the court of appeals, which reversed the district court'sdecision.
Mixed Messages
The warden of South Dakota petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case andin 1983 the Court began reviewing it. Although the court of appeals had overturned the district court's ruling, Rummel v. Estelle did set the stagefor decisions such as the district court's concerning repeat felons. Consequently, the majority's decision prevailed only by a slim margin, in the 5-4 ruling on 28 June 1983. Justice Powell and the justices in the majority arguedfor some objective measures in determining whether a sentence matched a crimeand formulated three criteria for making this determination: Courts should first consider the seriousness of the offense and the severity of the sentence, second weigh their sentences against others in the jurisdiction for the same crime, and third compare their sentences with those of other jurisdictionsfor the same crime.
Using these criteria, the Court decided to uphold the ruling by the court ofappeals. Helm's crimes ranked less serious than other crimes punishable by life imprisonment without parole--the state's maximum penalty--and the crimes did not involve violence or the threat of violence. According to the majorityopinion, society generally views Helm's crimes, especially his last, as lessserious than other felonies such as murder, assault, and rape. The Court concluded that Helm's sentence was equal or more severe than the sentences of people in the state who committed much more serious crimes and more severe thanin any other state, except Nevada for similar crimes.
The majority's decision relied on a subtle distinction between the Rummel and Helm cases: Rummel received a sentence with the possibility ofparole, whereas Helm receive a life sentence without that possibility. After12 years, Rummel could be eligible for parole for good behavior, but Helm would not have that option. The Court also noted that Helm had an alcohol addiction and that his crimes stemmed from this addiction. With proper treatment,Helm could arguably be rehabilitated. However, his sentence prevented such rehabilitation, according to the majority. Therefore, they upheld the ruling bythe court of appeals.
On the other hand, the dissenting justices argued that given the recent decision in Rummel v. Estelle the life sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. They reasoned that because Rummel committed only threefelonies: fraudulently using a credit card, passing a forged check, and obtaining money under false pretenses, all of which were nonviolent, his sentencecertainly was no more severe than Helm's. Moreover, since the majority made no effort to overturn this ruling, the dissenting justices questioned the consistency of the majority's opinion when the Court had deemed a life sentence for a man convicted of three felonies acceptable and not in violation of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In addition, the five justice majority in Rummel v. Estelle agreed that states had the right to impose the length of prison sentences at their discretion.
Lingering Problems
Controversy still surrounds repeat offender laws as more states adopt these policies. With two separate decisions in two similar cases: Rummel v. Estelle and Solem v. Helm, states continue to grapple with the problemof what to do with habitual felons. In California, for example, the "three strikes" law sent a man to prison for life for stealing two packs of cigarettesas well as a man who stole a slice of pizza, because they were previously convicted of multiple felonies. Solem v. Helm remains the case cited toreduce these kinds of sentences, while Rummel v. Estelle remains the case cited to issue such sentences.>Controversy still surrounds repeat offender laws as more states adopt these policies. With two separate decisions in two similar cases: Rummel v. Estelle and Solem v. Helm, states continue to grapple with the problem of what to do with habitual felons. In California, for example, the "three strikes" law sent a man to prison for life for stealing two packs of cigarettes as well as a man who stole a slice of pizza, because they were previously convicted of multiple felonies. Solem v.Helm remains the case cited to reduce these kinds of sentences, while Rummel v. Estelle remains the case cited to issue such sentences.
The court of appeals noted that Rummel v. Estelle was distinguishable.Helm's sentence without parole was qualitatively different from Rummel's life sentence with the prospect of parole because South Dakota has rejected rehabilitation as a goal of the criminal justice system.
Related Cases

• Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910).
  
• Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980).

Magna Carta
The Magna Carta (Latin for "Great Charter") is the document that forms the foundation of English government. Concerned with establishing limits on the tyrannical powers of the English monarchy, the Magna Carta is considered the first great assertion of political liberties in the history of western civilization. The Magna Carta provided the inspiration for the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of other democratic nations.
King John (1199-1216) signed the Magna Carta on 15 June 1215. That day, having recently suffered defeat at the hands of the French, King John was surrounded by sword-wielding English lords and noblemen in a battlefield near Runnymede. The barons, angry over the various financial extractions and court-related abuses by the Crown, forced King John to sign a document that contained a long list of rights. King John believed that the document would be worthless,and he signed it only as a way to postpone his bad fortunes. However, the document lived on and later became known as the Magna Carta.
The Magna Carta established various rights for English citizens and curbed the Crown's powers. For example, the Magna Carta pronounced the right of a person to be free from exile, imprisonment, and other punishments "except by thejudgment of his peers, or by the law of the land."
Sources
West Encyclopedia of American Law, Vol. 7. Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing, 1998