English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In Bowers v Hardwick, 1 the Supreme Court upheld Georgia's sodomy statute2 as applied to consenting adults of the same sex. Writing for the Court, Justice White held that there is no constitutional right to engage in sodomy.' In a brief concurring opinion, Justice Powell agreed that "there is no fundamental right-i.e., no substantive right under the Due Process Clause" to engage in consensual sodomy,4 but suggested that Hardwick might be protected from prosecution by the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. "The Georgia statute . . .authorizes a court to imprison a person for up to 20 years for a single private, consensual act of sodomy. In my view, a prison sentence for such conduct-certainly a sentence of long duration-would create a serious Eighth Amendment issue. ' This comment discusses whether a prison sentence for a term of years for violation of a sodomy statute could constitute cruel and unusual punishment. In Hardwick, the Court limited its holding to homosexual sodomy. This comment is similarly limited to the analysis of sodomy statutes as applied to consenting homosex-

Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Sodomy Statutes: The Breakdown of the Solem v Helm Test