In the case of Solem v. Helm, 1982, Jerry Helm was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for issuing a fraudulent check worth $100 due to South Dakota's recidivist statute which allowed severe punishment for repeat offenders. This sentence was challenged as being in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Helm with a 5-4 decision stating that his sentence was significantly disproportionate to his crime and thus violated the Eighth Amendment. The court held that while states have broad authority in determining criminal penalties, they must exercise this power within limits defined by considerations of proportionality under both general harm caused by crimes committed and specific characteristics of individual defendants.

In the dissenting opinion for Solem v. Helm, Justice O'Connor argued that the majority's decision to overturn Jerry Helm's sentence was a departure from precedent and an overreach of judicial power. She contended that it wasn't the Court’s role to determine what constitutes a fair punishment; instead, this responsibility should be left to legislatures and sentencing courts who are more familiar with local conditions and needs. Furthermore, she disagreed with the majority's use of comparative analysis between different jurisdictions' sentences as a measure of proportionality because such comparisons could lead to uniformity in sentencing across states which is not required by Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. Lastly, she expressed concern about how this ruling would affect future cases involving repeat offenders since it might limit states’ ability to impose severe punishments on them.