thank you supreme court:
THE SUPREME COURT; Excerpts From Ruling On Seizure of Property
Published: June 29, 1993
Following are excerpts from the Supreme Court's unanimous decision today finding that the Eighth Amendment ban on excessive fines requires that there be a relationship between the seriousness of an offense and the property that is taken. The decision, in Austin v. United States, was unanimous. Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote the majority opinion, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy wrote concurrences. BY JUSTICE BLACKMUN, For the Court
In this case, we are asked to decide whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to forfeitures of property under 21 U.S.C. Sections Sections 881(a)(4) and (a)(7). We hold that it does and therefore remand the case for consideration of the question whether the forfeiture at issue here was excessive. . . .
The purpose of the Eighth Amendment . . . was to limit the Government's power to punish. The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause is self-evidently concerned with punishment. The Excessive Fines Clause limits the Government's power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, "as punishment for some offense. . . ."
Thus, the question is not, as the United States would have it, whether forfeiture under Sections Sections 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) is civil or criminal, but rather whether it is punishment.
In considering this question, we are mindful of the fact that sanctions frequently serve more than one purpose. We need not exclude the possibility that a forfeiture serves remedial purposes to conclude that it is subject to the limitations of the Excessive Fines Clause. We, however, must determine that it can only be explained as serving in part to punish. . . .
8th Amendment
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."