In re KEMMLER, PETITIONER is a Supreme Court case from 1890 that dealt with the constitutionality of the death penalty. The petitioner, William Kemmler, was convicted of murder in New York and sentenced to death by electrocution. His lawyers argued that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment and thus unconstitutional. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the death penalty was not cruel and unusual punishment and that the state of New York had the right to impose it. The Court also noted that the death penalty was a long-standing practice in the United States and that it was not cruel and unusual punishment in the context of the Eighth Amendment. The ruling in this case established the constitutionality of the death penalty in the United States.

In the case of In re Kemmler, Petitioner, Justice Field wrote a dissenting opinion. He argued that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He believed that it was not only unconstitutional but also barbaric and unjustified for any crime committed by an individual. Furthermore, he argued that there were other forms of punishment available such as life imprisonment or hard labor which could be used instead of capital punishment. Additionally, he noted that if states had to choose between two punishments then they should opt for one which is less severe than execution since it would still serve its purpose without taking away someone’s life unnecessarily. Finally, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that no matter how heinous a crime may be; executing someone cannot be justified under any circumstances due to its inherent cruelty and inhumanity towards those who are subjected to it.