Final Answer:
States have absolute discretion over all sentencing. Thus the correct option is A.
Step-by-step explanation:
In Harmelin v. Michigan, the Supreme Court's majority view was that states have absolute discretion over all sentencing. The case, decided in 1991, dealt with the constitutionality of a life sentence without parole for the possession of a large quantity of drugs. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that there was no violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in this non-death penalty case. The majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia, emphasized that the Eighth Amendment's proportionality requirement did not apply to non-capital sentences, providing states broad authority in determining punishments for serious offenses.
The majority rejected the argument that the sentence was grossly disproportionate, establishing a precedent that allowed states considerable latitude in shaping their sentencing policies. This decision reinforced the concept of deference to state legislatures in crafting criminal penalties for various offenses. The dissenting justices argued that the severity of the sentence warranted constitutional scrutiny, but the majority held that absent a specific prohibition in the Constitution, states could exercise wide discretion in determining appropriate punishments. Therefore, the final answer is States have absolute discretion over all sentencing. (option A)