Final answer:
The statement that severe punishment did not detail the volume of crime in the early days of secular law is false. Punishment varied based on social status and other factors, and legal reforms have been made over time to ensure fair and humane treatment. The Eighth Amendment embodies these principles of enlightened justice.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement regarding the relationship between severe punishment and the volume of crime in the early days of secular law could be considered false. In historical contexts, punishment often varied depending on the individual's social status and other factors. For instance, in ancient legal systems such as that of the Tang dynasty, punishment was disproportionately severe for commoners and favored the privileged, such as imperial relatives and high officials, who received lighter sentences for the same crimes.
In the Code of Hammurabi, a principle was promoted that punishment should fit the crime; however, penalties often depended on the social class of the perpetrator. Moreover, during the early 1800s, many crimes were classified as capital offenses, and the severity of these penalties led to a reluctance among juries to convict. This prompted reforms to only reserve the death penalty for the most heinous of crimes and to establish other forms of punishment, such as sending petty criminals to penal colonies. This historical evolution underscores that the severity of punishment was detailed and influenced by factors other than simply the volume of crime, contradicting the notion that harsher penalties were indiscriminately applied.
Furthermore, modern legal principles, such as those outlined in the Eighth Amendment, reflect an evolved understanding of justice. The amendment stipulates that excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, illustrating a move towards a more enlightened and humane justice system.