Furman v. Georgia Jackson v. Georgia Branch v. Texas 8212 5003, 69 8212 5030, 69 8212 5031
Decision Date | 29 June 1972 |
Docket Number | Nos. 69,s. 69 |
Citation | 92 S.Ct. 2726,33 L.Ed.2d 346,408 U.S. 238 |
Parties | William Henry FURMAN, Petitioner, v. State of GEORGIA. Lucious JACKSON, Jr., Petitioner, v. State of GEORGIA. Elmer BRANCH, Petitioner, v. State of TEXAS. —5003, 69—5030, 69—5031 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Anthony G. Amsterdam, Stanford, Cal., for petitioner Furman.
Jack Greenberg, New York City, for petitioner Jackson.
Melvyn Carson Bruder, Dallas, Tex., for petitioner Branch.
Dorothy T. Beasley, Atlanta, Ga., for respondentState of Georgia.
Charles Alan Wright, Austin, Tex., for respondentState of Texas.
Willard J. Lassers and Elmer Gertz, Chicago, Ill., for amici curiae.
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.E.2d 501(1969).Petitioner in No. 69—5031 was convicted of rape in Texas and was sentenced to death pursuant to Vernon's 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, 91 S.Ct. 2287, 29 L.Ed.2d 863(1971).The Court holds that the imposi- tion 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.
Judgment in each case reversed in part and cases remanded.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice BLACKMUN, Mr. Justice POWELL, and Mr. Justice REHNQUIST have filed separate dissenting opinions.
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.
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, 67 S.Ct. 374, 376, and 381, 91 L.Ed. 422(Burton, J., dissenting);Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 667, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 1420, 8 L.Ed.2d 758.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, 30 S.Ct. 544, 553—555, 54 L.Ed. 793.
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 Statelegislation 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, 10 S.Ct. 930, 933, 34 L.Ed. 519.It is also said in our opinions 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, 217 U.S. at 378, 30 S.Ct., at 553.A like statement was made in Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101, 78 S.Ct. 590, 598, 2 L.Ed.2d 630, 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 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 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:
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 17764 and in the constitutions of seven other States.5 The Northwest Ordinance, enacted under the Articles of Confederation, included a prohibition 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.
The words 'cruel and unusual' certainly include pen- alties 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.8Judge Tuttle, indeed, made abundantly clear in Novak v. Beto, 5 Cir., 453 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, 10 S.Ct....
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Billiot v. Epps
...Kennedy v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2641, 2649, 171 L.Ed.2d 525 (2008) (quoting Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 382, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972) (Burger, C.J., dissenting)). In Ford, the Court summarized the "ancestral legacy" against execution of the insane and conclude......
-
State v. Bartol
...other existing punishment is comparable to death in terms of physical and mental suffering." Furman v. Georgia , 408 U.S. 238, 287, 92 S. Ct. 2726, 33 L. Ed. 2d 346 (1972) (Brennan, J., concurring). "The unusual severity of death is manifested most clearly in its finality and enormity. Deat......
-
People v. Howard
...the high court reexamined Witherspoon and its application in the intervening period. Following the decision in Furman v. Georgia (1972) 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346, the court noted, jurors were no longer vested with unlimited discretion as had been the case in Witherspoon. I......
-
People v. Harris
...penalty statute represents the California Legislature's attempt to comply with the high court's mandate in Furman v. Georgia (1972) 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 and Gregg v. Georgia (1976) 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 that the discretion of the jury to impose a......
-
<em>Furman</em> at 50: so much and so little
...date exactly 50 years ago, the US Supreme Court handed down its remarkable death penalty opinion in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). All nine Justices wrote separate opinions in Furman, resulting in one of the longest decision in the Court’s history. But the actual opinion of the Cou......
-
<em>Furman at 50</em>: DPIC provides a census of nearly 10,000 death sentences
...in this recent post, the US Supreme Court’s remarkable death penalty opinion in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), is now a half-century old, which provides me with an excuse to do a series of “Furman at 50″ posts. Helpfully, I am not the only one celebrating this milestone, and the De......
-
<em>Furman</em> at 50: some recent notable coverage
...in this recent post, the US Supreme Court’s remarkable death penalty opinion in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), is now a half century and I have not decided to create a series of “Furman at 50” posts. Unsurprisingly, I am not the only one to note the Furman milestone, and here is a ......
-
Institutionalizing the Culture of Control
...v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986)Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (1985)Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164 (1988)Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977)Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420 (1980)Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993)Graham v. Collins, 506 U......
-
Rapanos v. United States: Searching for a Significant Nexus Using Proximate Causation and Foreseeability Principles
...situation the Court confronted.” See United States v. Johnson, 467 F.3d 56, 63, 36 ELR 20218 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), and Memoirs v. Attorney General of Mass., 383 U.S. 413 (1966)). he U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also noted that “it se......
-
The jurisprudence of the PLRA: inmates as "outsiders" and the countermajoritarian difficulty.
...characteristic." JOHN HART ELY, DEMOCRACY AND DISTRUST 4 (1982) (quoting BICKEL, supra note 18, at 19.) (30) See, e.g., Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 384 (1972) (Burger, C.J., dissenting) ("[I]n a democracy the legislative judgment is presumed to embody the basic standards of decency pre......
-
Plurality decisions in the Supreme Court of the United States: a reexamination of the Marks doctrine after Rapanos v. United States.
...approach. Novak, supra note 3, at 761. The Gregg Court was interpreting its prior plurality decision in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). See Gregg, 428 U.S. at 168-69 (opinion of Stewart, Powell & Stevens, JJ.); Novak, supra note 3, at 761. In doing so, the lead opinion in Gregg ......
-
18 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 43 Defendant's Presence
...present in a capital case (assuming a death penalty provision is held constitutional, see Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972)) is left for further clarification by the courts.Subdivision (b)(1) makes clear that voluntary absence may constitute a waiver even......