More handpicked essays just for you.
Why is the death penalty an cruel and unusual punishment
Why is the death penalty an cruel and unusual punishment
Good reasons for the death penalty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Citation: Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) Facts: The petitioner, Troy Leon Gregg, in this case had been charged with the armed robbery and murder of two men (Findlaw, 2015). Gregg was found guilty by a jury of two counts of armed robbery, and two counts of murder, after which the judge instructed jurors that it could decide between a sentence of either life in prison, or the death penalty, and they could only do so if they found beyond a reasonable doubt that the murders were committed during the commission of other felonies, that Mr. Gregg murdered these two men for their property, and that the murders themselves were in any way depraved, vile, or inhuman (Findlaw, 2015). The jury found Mr. Gregg guilty of committing the murders during the commission of other felonies, and for the victims’ property, and came back with a sentence of death (Findlaw, 2015). …show more content…
Upon review of the trial transcripts and records, as well as the evidence and sentencing in similar cases, Georgia’s Supreme Court upheld the death sentence in this case, stating that the convictions and sentencing had not resulted from any prejudice or “arbitrary factors,” and were not excessive in comparison with other similar cases, but the court did overturn the armed robbery death sentences on the grounds that “the death penalty had rarely been imposed in Georgia for that offense” (Findlaw, 2015).
Mr. Gregg challenged his sentence of death on the grounds of it being in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause (Findlaw, 2015). It was argued that the death penalty could only be imposed if the jury and judge hears “additional extenuating or mitigating evidence and evidence in aggravation of punishment if made known to the defendant before trial,” during a presentence hearing (Findlaw, 2015).
Issue: The issue in this case is does the death penalty violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments? Supreme Court Decision: The Georgia Supreme Court upheld the convictions, and upheld the sentence of death for the murders, but reversed the lower courts’ sentences of the robberies. Case Significance: The Georgia Supreme Court’s reason for upholding the sentence of death was that it was reasonable when compared with other cases with similar convictions, and found that the convictions “had not resulted from prejudice or any other arbitrary factor and were not excessive or disproportionate to the penalty applied in similar cases,” which is basically stating that the sentence of death for the two murders was just, and did not violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments (Findlaw, 2015). The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the sentence of death for the murders, and their decision to vacate the lower court’s sentence of death for the armed robberies was based on the grounds that the “death penalty had rarely been imposed in Georgia for that offense” (Findlaw, 2015). I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the death penalty in this case. The death penalty did not violate Mr. Gregg’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and it was not imposed due to prejudice, passion, or other factors, and it wasn’t excessive when compared with similar crimes. He had murdered two men during the commission of a robbery, so in essence, had killed these men for their property, and deserved the sentence he received.
In a Georgia Court, Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and penalized to death. During his trial, the State Court use peremptory challenges to strike all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve on the Jury. However, Foster argued that the use of these strikes was racially motivated, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S.79. That led his claim to be rejected by the trial court, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The state courts rejected relief, and the Foster’s Batson claim had been adjudicated on direct appeal. Finally, his Batson claim had been failed by the court because it failed to show “any change in the facts sufficient to overcome”.
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
Facts: On October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Hymon and Wright were dispatched to answer a “prowler inside call.” When the police arrived at the scene, a neighbor gestured to the house where she had heard glass breaking and that someone was breaking into the house. While one of the officer radioed that they were on the scene, the other officer went to the rear of the house hearing a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The suspect, Edward Garner stopped at a 6-feet-high fence at the edge of the yard and proceeded to climb the fence as the police officer called out “police, halt.” The police officer figured that if Garner made it over the fence he would get away and also “figured” that Garner was unarmed. Officer Hymon then shot him, hitting him in the back of the head. In using deadly force to prevent the escape of Garner, Hymon used the argument that actions were made under the authority of the Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy. Although the department’s policy was slightly more restrictive than the statute it still allowed the use of deadly force in cases of burglary. Garner’s fathers’ argument was made that his son was shot unconstitutionally because he was captured and shot possessing ten dollars that he had stolen and being unarmed showing no threat of danger to the officer. The incident was then reviewed by the Memphis Police Firearm’s Revie...
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
.... Madison was applied to this decision because the actions committed were unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court the 8th Amendment was broken because the District Court of Appeal was giving a cruel and unusual punishment to Graham. The 8th amendment claus does not allow a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in jail without a parole for a non-homicidal crime. Therefore Terrance could not fall through with this punishment.
The Tennessee v. Garner case impacted law enforcement agencies today by utilizing the Fourth Amendment right of not using deadly force to prevent a suspect from fleeing unless the officer is in imminent danger of their life. Consequently, before this was set into place, an officer had the right to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect by all means.” The first time the Court dealt with the use of force was in Tennessee v. Garner, in Garner, a police officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" that the suspect was an unarmed teenager "of slight build" who was running away from him” (Gross,2016). Whereas, with Graham v. Conner case was surrounded around excessive force which also has an impact on law enforcement agencies in today’s society as well. “All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of s free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” standard” (Doerner,2016).
Does the first amendment overrule the Texas law that forbids the desecration of a venerated object under these circumstances?
Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention today. [Slide #2] I would like to assert that separation is not the end of a relationship. Divorce is not the end of a relationship. Even an arrest is not the end of a relationship. Only death is the end of a relationship. In the case of defendant Donna Osborn, her insistence that ‘“one way or another I’ll be free,”’ as told in the testimony of her friend Jack Mathews and repeated in many others’, indicates that despite the lack of planning, the defendant had the full intent to kill her husband, Clinton Osborn.
The case Worcester v. Georgia (1832) was a basis for the discussion of the issue of states' rights versus the federal government as played out in the administration of President Andrew Jackson and its battle with the Supreme Court. In addition to the constitutional issues involved, the momentum of the westward movement and popular support for Indian resettlement pitted white man against Indian. All of these factors came together in the Worcester case, which alarmed the independence of the Cherokee Nation, but which was not enforced. This examines the legal issues and tragic consequences of Indian resettlement.
The death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment which is strictly prohibited by the 8th amendment. William J. Brennan, Jr., JD, the Former US Supreme Court Justice, stated "Death is not only an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity, but it serves no penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment; therefore the principle inherent in the Clause that prohibits pointless infliction of excessive punishment when less severe punishment can adequately achieve the same purposes invalidates the punishment." Gregg v Georgia [1976]. After committing a crime all criminals will face some form of punishment after the action. As the honorable William J. Brennan stated above, if you can still bring justice to the crimes committed why would one go the extra mile to take somebody’s life. This makes the death penalty look spiteful and cruel. Even though criminals should be fully held for their actions and are not worthy of supporting in a jail cell, these arguments do serve a purpose. It is against America’s ethics as a country that follows the Constitution to continue these executions and makes the US look hypocritical and inhumane when trying to be the role model for the
Weems v. United States (1910) set a judicial precedent for showing that punishment must be proportionate to the crime committed and allowed courts to decide what is “cruel and unusual”. Lower courts allowed the VIS and that use sometimes came under question. Thus the case was sent to the U.S. Supreme Court to review. In Booth v. Maryland (1987) and Gathers v. South Carolina (1989) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that VIS could potentially lead to harsher sentences and yet upon further review reconsider their stance on VIS and overturn their decisions and concluded that the Eight Amendment was not violated by victim Impact statements on the ground that such statements did not lead to cruel and unusual punish...
Furman v. Georgia was a landmark case in the annals of American Law because it was the first time the Supreme Court turned to the controversial question of capital punishment. Capital punishment has always been a hotly debated issue in the United States. When this issue is coupled with the issue of racial discrimination, the matter becomes hotter than ever. And this is precisely what Furman v. Georgia was all about: a black man convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
The 6th Amendment guarantees a person accused of a crime compulsory process, the right to present witnesses in his defense. The importance of compulsory process is illustrated in the case Washington vs. Texas, where Jackie Washington was tried for murder. A state court ruled that Washington could not have an accomplice in the crime testify in his defense. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the state’s refusal to allow the defendant a capable witness violated the 6th Amendment. Therefore, the Supreme Court overruled the court’s c...
The death penalty case, Gregg vs. Georgia, commenced in 1976 when Mr. Troy Gregg, was accused of armed robbery and committing murder. In the initial trial period of Georgia's divided or bifurcated system, the jury found Gregg guilty on two counts of manslaughter and two counts of armed robbery. During the penalty stage, the magistrate counseled the jury by informing them of their options of punishing with life imprisonment or the death penalty on the following counts: that it was open to cogitate extenuating or aggravating situations in the event the involved persons presented any they will not be permitted to choose a death sentencing with the exception of reasonable doubt.
This media outlet provides direct source of interviews with one of Oklahoma’s justices opinnion and as example of present case. Through this example provided, it can be seen as a reliable direct source for first information on the death penalty policy. The attorney not only presented his case as an example but also explained the state laws that have this policy implicated in the state of Oklahoma. Justice, Stephen Breyer states, "I think, it's time to revisit the issue,". His interview illustrates his view on the policy and suggestion of possible changes in the policy. Stephen Bryeyer also comments, "This is not what people expected when they wrote the cases upholding the death penalty more than 40 years ago,”. His statement underlines the changes that has evolved since the death penalty has been enacted. Furthermore, this media source also outlines the death penalty system in the U.S and presents various medical information background thoroughly.