Death penalty ruled 'cruel and unusual' - Furman v. Georgia, 1972

[Joe Republic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furman_v._Georgia

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0408_0238_ZS.html

"Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in [these cases] constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?"

403 U.S. 952 (1971). The Court holds that the imposition [p240] and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The judgment in each case is therefore reversed insofar as it leaves undisturbed the death sentence imposed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings.

So ordered.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, MR. JUSTICE STEWART, MR. JUSTICE WHITE, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL have filed separate opinions in support of the judgments. THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, MR. JUSTICE POWELL, and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST have filed separate dissenting opinions.


This ruling caused the effective suspension of the death penalty until better consistency between the states could be imposed.

[Emsworth]

Unsound. The Constitution explicitly acknowledges capital punishment in no fewer than four cases:

- "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." (Fifth Amendment)

- "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." (Fifth Amendment)

- "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." (Fifth Amendment)

- "No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." (Fourteenth Amendment)

The Eighth Amendment should be interpreted consistently with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Since the Constitution explicitly recognizes the validity of capital punishment in not one but four places, capital punishment cannot be considered cruel or unusual. Imposing a national moratorium on the death penalty was nothing but judicial activism.

[dazzleman]

Another activist court ruling.  It was a very bad period for the Supreme Court.

[Jim Valvano]

Another ruling which demonstrates how much of an oxymoron their title of 'Justice' is. One of the most glaring  and obvious acts of judicial activism ever.

[True Federalist]

Generally sound.  Brennan's and Marshall's concurrences (they were the only two who found the death penalty totally unconstitutinal) were unsound.  But the basic finding that the inequitible application of the death penalty constitutes "unusual punishment" is sound.

Woodson v. North Carolina was unsound, but not Furman v. Georgia.

[Emsworth]

But the basic finding that the inequitible application of the death penalty constitutes "unusual punishment" is sound.

At most, the Justices could have found that the death penalty was inequitably applied in the case immediately before them. They had no authority to impose a national moratorium on the death penalty, merely because the defendants before them at the time may have been treated unfairly.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Couldn't it be argued that the death penalty is 'depriving life'?

[A18]

Couldn't it be argued that the death penalty is 'depriving life'?

It is depriving life, without a doubt. You seem to be ignoring the 'without due process' part.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Couldn't it be argued that the death penalty is 'depriving life'?

It is depriving life, without a doubt. You seem to be ignoring the 'without due process' part.

That's true.  All those two lines really do is ban lynching.

[A18]

Well, a state can't really 'lynch' someone. Anything authorized by law is due process of law.

[Peter]

But the basic finding that the inequitible application of the death penalty constitutes "unusual punishment" is sound.

At most, the Justices could have found that the death penalty was inequitably applied in the case immediately before them. They had no authority to impose a national moratorium on the death penalty, merely because the defendants before them at the time may have been treated unfairly.

There was ample evidence of inherent problems in sentencing regimes that were being used, especially in the Southern States. If a death penalty statute or its general application is violating equal protection, the statute cannot be allowed to stand, and thus must be struck down.

This has the obvious effect of creating a "moratorium" on the death penalty. It perhaps should not have created a national moratorium in the way that it did, but rather said that Georgia's regime was and laid out a basic framework for the Circuits to follow to decide whether such equal protection problems existed in the other States, but the underlying judgement that some sentencing schemes, and specifically the one of Georgia, were violating equal protection was sound.

[Emsworth]

There was ample evidence of inherent problems in sentencing regimes that were being used, especially in the Southern States. If a death penalty statute or its general application is violating equal protection, the statute cannot be allowed to stand, and thus must be struck down.

If I recall correctly, the Court's decision was based on the Eighth Amendment rather than the equal protection clause.

I believe that the Supreme Court did not find any evidence of racial bias against the defendant. Rather, it considered general statistics relating to the application of capital punishment in other cases. Such an approach is wholly inappropriate, in my opinion.

[Vasall des Midas]

They struck down the Death Penalty laws in current existence. They didn't rule the Death Penalty as such unconstitutional, so your argument in your first post really goes nowhere, Emsworth. (Also, your first example doesn't even deal with the death penalty, and your second one also declares mutilation constitutional.)

[Emsworth]

They struck down the Death Penalty laws in current existence. They didn't rule the Death Penalty as such unconstitutional, so your argument in your first post really goes nowhere, Emsworth. (Also, your first example doesn't even deal with the death penalty, and your second one also declares mutilation constitutional.)

How does the first example fail to deal with the death penalty? It refers to "capital" crimes.

As to the second example, yes, of course mutilation is constitutional.

[Vasall des Midas]

They struck down the Death Penalty laws in current existence. They didn't rule the Death Penalty as such unconstitutional, so your argument in your first post really goes nowhere, Emsworth. (Also, your first example doesn't even deal with the death penalty, and your second one also declares mutilation constitutional.)

How does the first example fail to deal with the death penalty? It refers to "capital" crimes.

Not to punishment.

[Vasall des Midas]

Oh, and I don't think amputation of arms, boring through the tongue, etc, were still considered usual at the time. The 18th century was really quite enlightened in judicial practice - though not ancient, unreformed bodies of law - much better than the 19th in many but not all respects.

[Emsworth]

Not to punishment.

A capital crime is a crime that can be punished by death. What else could it mean?

[Vasall des Midas]

Not to punishment.

A capital crime is a crime that can be punished by death. What else could it mean?

I've checked, and that indeed is the only meaning it has in English (apart from stupid puns). In German, the definition of Kapitalverbrechen is given as, any major crime, or any crime previously punishable by death ... examples stated being murder, rape, and conspiracy. which is what I started out from. Sorry!

[Joe Republic]

Wait a second.  How exactly is mutilation constitutional?  That's about as cruel and unusual as you're likely to find.

[Emsworth]

Wait a second.  How exactly is mutilation constitutional?  That's about as cruel and unusual as you're likely to find.

The Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause explicitly foresees cutting off someone's limbs: "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." If one part of the Bill of Rights specifically acknowledges it, then another part of the Bill of Rights does not prohibit it.

Only torturous punishments should be considered "cruel and unusual."

[Vasall des Midas]

This of course is assuming that a 1789 member of the constitutional convention was aware of the historical meaning of the phrase. Given that boring through the tongue, amputation of limbs etc had gone out of use in the Americas quite a while before, and the phrase "life and limb" sounds so cool, this may be too large an assumption actually.

[AuH2O]

One of the worst decisions ever handed down. All concurring justices deserved the death penalty.

[Redefeatbush04]

One of the worst decisions ever handed down. All concurring justices deserved the death penalty.

Another fine example of maturity by AuH20 (rolls eyes)

[A18]

Actually, the immaturity was on the part of those justices.

[Redefeatbush04]

Actually, the immaturity was on the part of those justices.

Murder is cruel. Using taxpayers money to do it is unusual