text: The 1991 case of Wilson v. Seiter established that a certain class of people alleging this constitutional violation must show a "culpable state of mind" or "deliberate indifference," using the standard created in Estelle v. Gamble.
full_question: The 1991 case of Wilson v. Seiter established that a certain class of people alleging this constitutional violation must show a "culpable state of mind" or "deliberate indifference," using the standard created in Estelle v. Gamble. The state was found not to have violated this constitutional protection in Penry v. Lynaugh, though that ruling was overturned by the 2002 case Atkins v. Virginia, which was recently qualified in Hall v. Florida. This protection was first applied to the states in the 1962 decision Robinson v. California, though the seminal 1910 case of Weems v. United States established the "proportionality doctrine" in evaluating whether this right had been violated. In Roper v. Simmons, Justice Kennedy used the idea of "evolving standards of decency" to hold that Missouri was violating this clause by seeking to execute a person who committed a crime as a minor. For 10 points, name this protection that, along with excessive fines and excessive bail, is extended by the Eighth Amendment.
first_sentence: The 1991 case of Wilson v. Seiter established that a certain class of people alleging this constitutional violation must show a "culpable state of mind" or "deliberate indifference," using the standard created in Estelle v. Gamble.
raw_answer: "cruel and unusual punishment" [or any descriptive answer that contains the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment"; prompt on "Eighth Amendment violation"]