408 U.S. 238 (1972), 69-5003, Furman v. Georgia
Docket Nº | No. 69-5003 |
Citation | 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 |
Party Name | Furman v. Georgia |
Case Date | June 29, 1972 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Page 238
Argued January 17, 1972
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA
Syllabus
Imposition and carrying out of death penalty in these cases held to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
No. 69-5003, 225 Ga. 253, 167 S.D.2d 628; No. 69-5030, 225 Ga. 790, 171 S.D.2d 501; No. 69-5031, 447 S.W.2d 932, reversed and remanded.
Page 239
Per curiam opinion.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner in No. 69-5003 was convicted of murder in Georgia, and was sentenced to death pursuant to Ga.Code Ann. § 26-1005 (Supp. 1971) (effective prior to July 1, 1969). 225 Ga. 253, 167 S.E.2d 628 (1969). Petitioner in No. 69-5030 was convicted of rape in Georgia, and was sentenced to death pursuant to Ga.Code Ann. § 26-1302 (Supp. 1971) (effective prior to July 1, 1969). 225 Ga. 790, 171 S.D.2d 501 (1969). Petitioner in No. 69-5031 was convicted of rape in Texas, and was sentenced to death pursuant to Tex.Penal Code, Art. 1189 (1961). 447 S.W.2d 932 (Ct.Crim.App. 1969). Certiorari was granted limited to the following question:
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
Page 240
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.
DOUGLAS, J., concurring
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring.
In these three cases the death penalty was imposed, one of them for murder, and two for rape. In each, the determination of whether the penalty should be death or a lighter punishment was left by the State to the discretion of the judge or of the jury. In each of the three cases, the trial was to a jury. They are here on petitions for certiorari which we granted limited to the question whether the imposition and execution of the death penalty constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment as applied to the States by the Fourteenth.1 I vote to vacate each judgment, believing that the exaction of the death penalty does violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Page 241
That the requirements of due process ban cruel and unusual punishment is now settled. Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 463, and 473-474 [92 S.Ct. 2728] (Burton, J., dissenting); Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 667. It is also settled that the proscription of cruel and unusual punishments forbids the judicial imposition of them as well as their imposition by the legislature. Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 378-382.
Congressman Bingham, in proposing the Fourteenth Amendment, maintained that "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, included protection against "cruel and unusual punishments:"
[M]any instances of State injustice and oppression have already occurred in the State legislation of this Union, of flagrant violations of the guarantied privileges of citizens of the United States, for which the national Government furnished and could furnish by law no remedy whatever. Contrary to the express letter of your Constitution, "cruel and unusual punishments" have been inflicted under State laws within this Union upon citizens not only for crimes committed, but for sacred duty done, for which and against which the Government of the United States had provided no remedy, and could provide none.
Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2542.
Whether the privileges and immunities route is followed or the due process route, the result is the same.
It has been assumed in our decisions that punishment by death is not cruel, unless the manner of execution can be said to be inhuman and barbarous. In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 447. It is also said in our opinions
Page 242
that the proscription of cruel and unusual punishments "is not fastened to the obsolete, but may acquire meaning as public opinion becomes enlightened by a humane justice." Weems v. United States, supra, at 378. A like statement was made in Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101, that the Eighth Amendment "must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."
The generality of a law inflicting capital punishment is one thing. What may be said of the validity of a law on the books and what may be done with the law in its application do, or may, lead to quite different conclusions.
It would seem to be incontestable that the death penalty inflicted on one defendant is "unusual" if it discriminates against him by reason of his race, religion, wealth, social position, or class, or if it is imposed under a procedure that gives room for the play of such prejudices.
There is evidence that the provision of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, from which the language of the Eighth Amendment was taken, was concerned primarily with selective or irregular application of harsh penalties, and that its aim was to forbid arbitrary and discriminatory penalties of a severe nature:2
Following the Norman conquest of England in 1066, the old system of penalties, which ensured equality between crime and punishment, suddenly disappeared. By the time systematic judicial records were kept, its demise was almost complete. With the exception of certain grave crimes for which the punishment was death or outlawry, the arbitrary fine was replaced by a discretionary
Page 243
amercement. Although amercement's discretionary character allowed the circumstances of each case to be taken into account, and the level of cash penalties to be decreased or increased accordingly, the amercement presented an opportunity for excessive or oppressive fines.
The problem of excessive amercements became so prevalent that three [92 S.Ct. 2729] chapters of the Magna Carta were devoted to their regulation. Maitland said of Chapter 14 that, "very likely, there was no clause in the Magna Carta more grateful to the mass of the people." Chapter 14 clearly stipulated as fundamental law a prohibition of excessiveness in punishments:
A free man shall not be amerced for a trivial offence, except in accordance with the degree of the offence, and for a serious offence, he shall be amerced according to its gravity, saving his livelihood; and a merchant likewise, saving his merchandise; in the same way, a villein shall be amerced saving his wainage, if they fall into our mercy. And none of the aforesaid amercements shall be imposed except by the testimony of reputable men of the neighborhood.
The English Bill of Rights, enacted December 16, 1689, stated that "excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."3 These were the words chosen for our Eighth Amendment. A like provision had been in Virginia's Constitution of 1776,4 and in the constitutions
Page 244
of seven other States.5 The Northwest Ordinance, enacted under the Articles of Confederation, included a prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.6 But the debates of the First Congress on the Bill of Rights throw little light on its intended meaning. All that appears is the following:7
Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, objected to the words "nor cruel and unusual punishments," the import of them being too indefinite.
Mr. LIVERMORE: The clause seems to express a great deal of humanity, on which account I have no objection to it; but, as it seems to have no meaning in it, I do not think it necessary. What is meant by the terms excessive bail? Who are to be the judges? What is understood by excessive fines? It lies with the court to determine. No cruel and unusual punishment is to be inflicted; it is sometimes necessary to hang a man, villains often deserve whipping, and perhaps having their ears cut off; but are we in future to be prevented from inflicting these punishments because they are cruel? If a more lenient mode of correcting vice and deterring others from the commission of it could be invented, it would be very prudent in the Legislature to adopt it; but until we have some security that this will be done, we ought not to be restrained from making necessary laws by any declaration of this kind.
The words "cruel and unusual" certainly include penalties
Page 245
that are barbaric. But the words, at least when read in light of the English proscription against selective and irregular use of penalties, suggest that it is "cruel and unusual" to apply the death penalty -- or any other penalty -- selectively to minorities whose numbers are few, who are outcasts of society, and who are unpopular, but whom society is willing to see suffer though it would not countenance general application of the same penalty across the board.8 Judge Tuttle, indeed, made [92 S.Ct. 2730] abundantly clear in Novak v. Beto, 43 F.2d 661, 673-679 (CA5) (concurring in part and dissenting in part), that solitary confinement may at times be "cruel and unusual" punishment. Cf. Ex parte Medley, 134 U.S. 160; Brooks v. Florida, 389 U.S. 413.
The Court in McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183, 198, noted that, in this country, there was almost from the beginning a "rebellion against the common law rule imposing a mandatory death sentence on all...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
"Like snow (falling) on a branch ...": international law influences on death penalty decisions and debates in the United States.
...reports, but these services are not supported by DPIC. See generally id. (7.) U.S. CONST. amend. VIII. (8.) See Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (9.) See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976); see Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976); see Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976). (10.) See Gr......
-
The states are right: arguing for the continued use of state legislatures in forming a national consensus for the evolving standards of decency.
...to the level of seventeenth-century torture, it is not cruel and unusual). (15.) Trop, 356 U.S. at 101. (16.) Id. (17.) Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 239-40 (1972) (per curiam). Concerned with the lack of consistency and process in the country's capital-punishment regime, an extremely fr......
-
In defense of specific proportionality review.
...capital punishment is an appropriate penalty for the crime being tried"). (47) See infra notes 48-57 and accompanying text. (48) 408 U.S. 238 (1972). (49) Id. at 293 (Brennan, J., concurring). (50) GA. CODE ANN. [section] 17-10-35(c)(3) (1997). (51) At the time, Georgia Supreme Court p......
-
The shifting of the Supreme Court of Georgia's death penalty decisions from 1998-2003.
...sentence found to involve unnecessary cruelty in light of presently available alternatives. Id. at 352 n.17 (quoting Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 430 (1972) (Powell, J., dissenting)). (81) See id. at 352-54. (82) See Esposito v. State. 538 S.E.2d 55, 60 (Ga. 2000) (Sears, J., concurring......
-
505 F.Supp.2d 1024 (D.N.M. 2007), CR 02-1055, United States v. Martinez
...United States had conceded that it would not seek the death penalty because of the constitutional uncertainties that Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), raised, but held that the Supreme Court's decision in Furman v. Georgia "did not necessarily have ......
-
66 M.J. 721 (N.M.Crim.App. 2008), NMCCA 9501607, United States v. Walker
...153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972); Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 113 S.Ct. 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993); Strickland v. Washington,......
-
United States v. Akbar, 081915 CAAF, 13-7001
...penalty of death differs from all other forms of criminal punishment, not in degree but in kind." (quoting Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 306 (1972))); United States v. Curtis (Curtis I), 32 M.J. 252, 255 (C.M.A. 1991) (recognizing that the Supreme Court treats capital and noncapital......
-
United States v. Gray, 052899 CAAF, 93-7001
...v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 114 S.Ct. 1239 (1994). LVII WHETHER THE MILITARY DEATH PENALTY SCHEME IS INVALID DUE TO FURMAN V. GEORGIA, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE. This is the fourth time this issue has been presented to this Court. Loving, 41 MJ at 293......
-
In-Depth Look at the Law: Does the Florida Death Penalty by Lethal Injection Violate the Constitution?
...constitutionally offensive – and therefore, illegal — if it involves the foreseeable infliction of suffering. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 273 (1973). Such things as (1) the probable length of time the condemned remains conscious of the process; (2) the physical or psychological pain he......
-
Considering the Importance of Sonya Sotomayor and Capital Punishment, looking back to Furman v. Georgia and its 5 -4 vote
...we must proceed with caution to answer the question presented. By first examining the historical derivation of the Eighth Amendment and [408 U.S. 238, 316] the construction given it in the past by this Court, and then exploring the history and attributes of capital punishment in this countr......
-
"Bureau of Justice Statistics releases "Capital Punishment, 2020 – Statistical Tables"
...number reported since the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated capital punishment statutes in several states in 1972 (see Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)). ƒNineteen states removed a total of 91 prisoners from under sentence of death by means other than execution in 2020. ƒDuring 2020, 17 ......
-
Washington Supreme Court Holds that Governor’s Cancellation of an Inmate’s Parole Does Not Violate Due Process
...then and there work any change in the conditions of his liberty.” Opinion, at 16 (citations omitted) (distinguishing Morrissey v. Bowen, 408 U.S. 421 (1972)). The Court’s constitutional analysis approached the liberty interest at stake — and the process that is due — as a continuum. Not all......
-
"Like snow (falling) on a branch ...": international law influences on death penalty decisions and debates in the United States.
...reports, but these services are not supported by DPIC. See generally id. (7.) U.S. CONST. amend. VIII. (8.) See Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (9.) See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976); see Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976); see Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976). (10.) See Gr......
-
Shortcuts to 'truth': the legal mythology of dying declarations.
...Angliae 65 (Dr. Chrimes ed., 1942) (1471). (90.) In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 372 (1970) (Harlan J., concurring). (91.) Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 367 n.158 (1972) (Marshall, J., concurring) (quoting William O. Douglas, Foreword to Jerome Frank & Barbara Frank, Not Guilty 11-12 (1......
-
Rethinking Robinson v. California in the wake of Jones v. Los Angeles: avoiding the "demise of the criminal law" by attending to "punishment".
...pretrial torture given their inclusion of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against coerced self-incrimination. See Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 260 n.2 (1971) (Brennan, J., concurring) (discussing the exchange between Patrick Henry and George Mason, who pointed out that torture to indu......
-
When punishing innocent conduct violates the Eighth Amendment: applying the Robinson doctrine to homelessness and other contextual "crimes".
...to treating "members of the human race as nonhumans" and thus is cruel and unusual. Id. at 313-14 (quoting Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238,272-73 (Brennan, J., concurring)). However, this commentator acknowledges that, "because the definition of 'inhuman' treatment depends on......