A criminal conviction often, if not always, involves the imposition of financial penalties on a defendant. Such penalties can be catastrophically debilitating for defendants. With such severe consequences possible, it is of little wonder the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines exists. However, the exact state of the law surrounding the Excessive Fines Clause is anything but clear, especially when it comes to purportedly “remedial,” rather than punitive, payments. Under current Supreme Court doctrine, purely remedial payments might not be constrained by the Excessive Fines Clause at all. This understanding has serious consequences for criminal defendants who frequently find themselves saddled with such payments. Remedial payments frequently come in the form of “criminal restitution” – a theoretically remedial payment that has seen growing popularity over the years. To partly address this blind spot in the law of the Excessive Fines Clause, this Note uses a historical lens to explore whether the Excessive Fines Clause is meant to constrain criminal restitution. It explores the origins of the Excessive Fines Clause and follows its gradual development until the day it was incorporated into the Bill of Rights.

中文翻译：

---

恢复原状和超额罚款条款

刑事定罪通常（如果并非总是如此）涉及对被告实施经济处罚。此类处罚可能会严重削弱被告人的能力。由于可能产生如此严重的后果，因此第八修正案禁止过度罚款也就不足为奇了。然而，围绕超额罚款条款的确切法律状态尚不清楚，尤其是在涉及所谓的“补救性”而非惩罚性付款时。根据目前最高法院的原则，纯粹的补救支付可能根本不受超额罚款条款的限制。这种理解对经常发现自己背负着此类付款的刑事被告具有严重后果。补救付款通常以“刑事赔偿”的形式出现——一种理论上的补救付款，多年来越来越受欢迎。为了部分解决超额罚款条款法律中的这一盲点，本说明使用历史视角来探讨超额罚款条款是否旨在限制刑事赔偿。它探讨了超额罚款条款的起源，并跟随其逐渐发展直到它被纳入权利法案的那一天。