Lawyer's analysis requested, re: cruel and unusual punishment

[SpankMe]

DU lawyers:

We've seen 8th amendment ('cruel and unusual punishment') principles applied to the mitigate use of death penalty for youthful offenders and to those with diminished mental capacity.

But, I've never seen the 8th invoked in non-death penalty cases. I've never even seen it tried.

For example, a man got 22 years in prison for stealing a TV remote from a rec room in an apartment complex. He had prior crimes, but none were violent and none were particularly serious.

And now, prosecutors in Utah are applying charges to a woman that could result in life in prison - for the "crime" of purchasing red paint in advance of a protest. I know it's not likely to get that far. But even a bargained-down, reduced charge from such a severe initial charge is out of line. This should be nothing more that "conspiracy to commit vandalism" with a fine and nothing else.

Isn't life in prison for purchasing red paint "cruel and unusual"? Isn't 22 years for stealing a $15 item "cruel and unusual"?

Why does the system consider only death as cruel and unusual? Why is the system so resistant to considering wildly out-of-proportion penalties as cruel and unusual?

[crickets]

1. K&R for visibility.