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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:31:39 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Death penalty ruled 'cruel and unusual' - Furman v. Georgia, 1972
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: The ruling was constitutionally...
#1
sound
 
#2
unsound
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 39

Author Topic: Death penalty ruled 'cruel and unusual' - Furman v. Georgia, 1972  (Read 12572 times)
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,042
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 26, 2005, 08:09:11 PM »
« edited: December 26, 2005, 08:13:32 PM by 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.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2005, 08:20:07 PM »

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.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2005, 08:24:11 PM »

Another activist court ruling.  It was a very bad period for the Supreme Court.
Logged
Schmitz in 1972
Liberty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,317
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2005, 08:52:42 PM »

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.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2005, 09:18:06 PM »

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.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 26, 2005, 09:20:45 PM »

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.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 26, 2005, 11:07:52 PM »

Couldn't it be argued that the death penalty is 'depriving life'?
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 26, 2005, 11:13:34 PM »

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.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 26, 2005, 11:21:16 PM »

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.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 26, 2005, 11:27:17 PM »

Well, a state can't really 'lynch' someone. Anything authorized by law is due process of law.
Logged
Peter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,030


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 27, 2005, 01:49:43 PM »

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.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2005, 02:01:42 PM »

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.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 31, 2005, 07:09:50 AM »

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.)
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 31, 2005, 09:00:30 AM »

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.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 31, 2005, 09:06:49 AM »

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.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 31, 2005, 09:08:37 AM »

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.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 31, 2005, 09:12:40 AM »

A capital crime is a crime that can be punished by death. What else could it mean?
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 31, 2005, 09:31:36 AM »

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!
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,042
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 31, 2005, 10:33:55 AM »

Wait a second.  How exactly is mutilation constitutional?  That's about as cruel and unusual as you're likely to find.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 31, 2005, 12:52:34 PM »

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."
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 01, 2006, 09:10:21 AM »

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.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 01, 2006, 04:32:27 PM »

One of the worst decisions ever handed down. All concurring justices deserved the death penalty.
Logged
Redefeatbush04
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,504


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: January 02, 2006, 07:58:04 PM »

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

Another fine example of maturity by AuH20 (rolls eyes)
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: January 02, 2006, 07:59:00 PM »

Actually, the immaturity was on the part of those justices.
Logged
Redefeatbush04
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,504


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: January 02, 2006, 09:16:57 PM »

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

Murder is cruel. Using taxpayers money to do it is unusual Tongue
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 15 queries.