holding castration, which the Court described as "a form of mutilation," constituted cruel or unusual punishment that is prohibited by article I, section 15 of the South Carolina Constitution, even though such punishment had been deemed permissible in other jurisdictions under an Eighth Amendment analysis
How later courts described this case
- holding castration, which the Court described as "a form of mutilation," constituted cruel or unusual punishment that is prohibited by article I, section 15 of the South Carolina Constitution, even though such punishment had been deemed permissible in other jurisdictions under an Eighth Amendment analysis
- holding castration is a form of mutilation and that mutilation as punishment for a criminal offense is prohibited by article I, section 15 of the South Carolina Constitution
- holding trial courts are allowed a wide, but not unlimited, discretion in imposing conditions of suspension or probation and they cannot impose conditions which are illegal and void as against public policy
- holding judges are “allowed a wide, but not unlimited, discretion in imposing conditions of suspension or probation and they cannot impose conditions which are illegal and void as against public policy”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Ness, Justice
(concurring):
I concur that castration as a condition to suspension of the sentence and probation is void. I would hold the thirty year sentence is severable and valid. Resentencing is therefore unnecessary.
Littlejohn, C. J., concurs.