conviction does not disqualify him from habeas relief. III. Despite Joshua’s prior convictions and prison terms, his sentence is unconstitutional based upon the “culpability” consideration raised in the Supreme Court’s Solem opinion. Solem, 463 U.S. at 292, 103 S.Ct. 3001. In Solem, the Court stated, “Application of [the proportionality] factors assumes that courts are competent to judge the gravity of an offense, at least on a relative scale.... Comparisons can be made in light of the harm caused or threatened to the victim or society, and the culpability of the offender.” Id. (emphasis added). Courts frequently reference defendants’ culpability in Eighth Amendment cases. See, e.g., Cooper Indus. v. Leatherman Tool Group, 532 U.S. 424, 435, 121 S.Ct. 1678, 149 L.Ed.2d 674 (2001) (<HOLDING>); Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 1022, 111 S.Ct. 2680
holding that excessive fines clause does not apply to civiljury award of punitive fines holding that excessive fines clause of eighth amendment does not apply to punitive damage awards between private parties holding that the fines imposed by the challenged city ordinances are not excessive even if the excessive fines clause is applicable recognizing culpability as important criteria for eighth amendment excessive fines claim holding that forfeitures may violate the eighth amendment excessive fines clause