Isabella Carter
The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, has been a highly contested issue in the United States for decades. In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled in Furman v. Georgia that the application of the death penalty was unconstitutional, violating the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, in 1976, the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty as constitutional in Gregg v. Georgia, holding that it did not per se violate the Constitution. This decision was based on the condition that state laws provided an objective process for deciding when to apply capital punishment and gave juries sufficient discretion to determine its appropriateness. Since then, the Supreme Court has regularly considered multiple capital cases each term, facing questions on the constitutionality of specific aspects of the death penalty system.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date of ruling | 1976 |
| Case name | Gregg v. Georgia |
| Accompanying cases | Woodson v. North Carolina, Coker v. Georgia, Lockett v. Ohio, Enmund v. Florida, Ford v. Wainwright, Batson v. Kentucky |
| Decision | The death penalty is not per se unconstitutional |
| Conditions | State laws must provide an objective process for deciding when to apply it and give sufficient discretion to juries to determine whether it is appropriate |
| Ruling justices | Potter Stewart, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell |
| Dissenting justices | Marshall, Brennan |
| Previous ruling | Furman v. Georgia (1972) |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The 1972 case of Furman v. Georgia
Furman v. Georgia was argued on January 17, 1972, and decided on June 29, 1972. The case involved William Henry Furman, Lucious Jackson, and Elmer Branch, three petitioners sentenced to death for aggravated felonies. Furman was convicted of murder, while Jackson and Branch were convicted of rape (with the victims being white, and in Branch's case, 65 years old). The case of Earnest James Aikens was initially part of Furman v. Georgia, but it was dropped when the California Supreme Court decided that the death penalty was unconstitutional under the state constitution.
The Supreme Court's one-paragraph per curiam opinion held that "the imposition of the death penalty... in these cases constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." A majority of the Justices agreed that arbitrariness in capital sentencing violated the Eighth Amendment, but they could not agree on a rationale. The Furman decision invalidated the death sentences of nearly 700 people and mandated a degree of consistency in the application of the death penalty.
In response to Furman, 35 states rewrote their death penalty laws, most of which were upheld in the 1976 case of Gregg v. Georgia. In Gregg v. Georgia, the Supreme Court held that the death penalty was not per se unconstitutional and could be revived if state laws provided an objective process for deciding when to apply it and gave sufficient discretion to juries to determine its appropriateness.
Bylaws and General Orders: What's the Voting Link?
You may want to see also
The 1976 case of Gregg v. Georgia
In 1976, the US Supreme Court held that the death penalty was not per se unconstitutional in a group of consolidated cases known as Gregg v. Georgia. The ruling stated that the punishment could be revived if state laws provided an objective process for deciding when to apply it and gave sufficient discretion to juries to determine whether it was appropriate. This marked a significant shift in attitudes towards capital punishment, with public support for the death penalty increasing from 50% in 1972 to 66% in 1976.
The case of Gregg v. Georgia specifically addressed the issue of whether the death penalty imposed for murder on petitioner Troy Leon Gregg under the new Georgia statutory scheme could be carried out constitutionally. The Court found that the Georgia sentencing scheme met the criteria for a constitutional capital sentencing scheme, which included two broad guidelines that legislatures must follow. Firstly, the scheme must provide objective criteria to direct and limit the death sentencing discretion, with the objectiveness ensured by appellate review of all death sentences. Secondly, the scheme must allow the sentencer (judge or jury) to consider the character and record of the individual defendant.
The decision in Gregg v. Georgia ended the de facto moratorium on the death penalty imposed by the Court in its 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia. In Furman, the Court held that the death penalty, as administered in Georgia at the time, was unconstitutional. Following this decision, 35 states rewrote their laws to comply with the Court's ruling, and the Georgia Legislature enacted a new statutory scheme under which the death penalty could be imposed for several offenses, including murder.
The Constitution: Weeks of Work Ahead
You may want to see also
The 1987 case of McCleskey v. Kemp
In 1976, the Supreme Court held that the death penalty was not per se unconstitutional. The ruling came in a group of consolidated cases known as Gregg v. Georgia. The punishment could be revived if state laws provided an objective process for deciding when to apply it and gave sufficient discretion to juries to determine whether it was appropriate.
McCleskey challenged the Georgia capital sentencing process, claiming it was administered in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. He provided a statistical study (the Baldus study) that showed a disparity in the imposition of the death penalty based on race. However, the Supreme Court ruled that even if the study were valid, McCleskey's discrimination claim would still fail. The Court held that a "racially disproportionate impact" indicated by a study was not enough to mitigate a death penalty determination without showing a "racially discriminatory purpose."
The decision in McCleskey v. Kemp has been criticized for making it extremely difficult to challenge the criminal justice system for racial bias. It requires proof of intentional discrimination or conscious, deliberate bias, which is challenging to obtain. The case has been described as immunizing the criminal justice system from judicial scrutiny for racial discrimination. Some academics, however, argue that the impact of the case has been overstated.
The Core of Liberal Education: Sir Richard Livingstone's Vision
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The 2002 case of Ring v. Arizona
Under Arizona law, the death penalty could not be imposed unless further findings were made by a judge in a separate sentencing hearing. The judge was required to determine the existence or nonexistence of "aggravating circumstances" and any "mitigating circumstances". The death sentence could only be imposed if the judge found at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances that would warrant leniency.
Ring's trial judge sentenced him to death. Ring challenged the constitutionality of Arizona's capital sentencing scheme, arguing that the Sixth Amendment required a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. The Supreme Court agreed with Ring, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find aggravating factors necessary for a death sentence. This decision overruled a portion of Walton v. Arizona, which had held that Arizona's capital sentencing scheme was not subject to a jury requirement.
The Ring v. Arizona decision had important implications for capital sentencing schemes across the United States. It clarified that the Sixth Amendment's jury trial guarantee requires that aggravating factors necessary for a death sentence must be found by a jury, rather than a judge. This ruling ensured that defendants in capital cases have the right to a jury trial on all critical aspects of their sentencing.
Supreme Court: Bound by the Constitution?
You may want to see also
The 2005 case of Roper v. Simmons
In 2005, the case of Roper v. Simmons saw the US Supreme Court ban the death penalty for all juvenile offenders. The case concerned Christopher Simmons, who, at the age of 17, planned and committed a capital murder. After turning 18, he was sentenced to death. His direct appeal and subsequent petitions for state and federal post-conviction relief were rejected.
Following the 2002 Supreme Court decision in Atkins v. Virginia, the Missouri Supreme Court decided to reconsider Simmons's case. The Missouri Court used the Atkins ruling as a precedent to set aside Stanford v. Kentucky, a 1989 US Supreme Court decision which had held that it was constitutional to execute a minor. The Missouri Supreme Court decided 6-3 against the administration of the death penalty for a minor, arguing that the opinions and ideas of 1989 were no longer the same in 2003. The US Supreme Court upheld the Missouri Supreme Court's decision, reasoning that as societal standards on the death penalty changed, so should the way in which the Court rules on its constitutionality.
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer concurred. Kennedy's argument revolved around the Eighth Amendment and the idea of "cruel and unusual" punishment. He deemed that the execution of a minor falls under this category. Justice O'Connor dissented, questioning what defines a minor: is it age or maturity? If Simmons had been 18 when he committed the crime, could we assume that he would have been sufficiently more mature to merit the death penalty?
The Roper v. Simmons ruling was an instance of changing times and evolving standards of decency. It reflected the US Supreme Court's recognition that societal standards on the death penalty had shifted, and that the death penalty for minors was now unreasonable and illegal in a majority of states. This case demonstrated the Court's role in interpreting and adapting to changing understandings of the Constitution.
Constitutional Isomers of Pentane: Exploring Structural Diversity
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Supreme Court ruled the death penalty constitutional in 1976 in Gregg v. Georgia.
In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that the application of the death penalty was unconstitutional as it violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The Supreme Court ruled that mandatory death sentences violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Supreme Court ruled that death sentences for the rape of an adult woman violate the Eighth Amendment.
