The Pros And Cons Of The Death Penalty

Capital Punishment, the sentencing of offenders to death through bifurcated trials (the division of a trial between guilt and sentencing phases), has been one of the most controversial aspects of our criminal justice system. It has been hotly debated for decades regarding whether or not the death penalty can be considered constitutional. In order to fully understand how the death penalty can be properly imposed we must look at the cases of Gregg vs. Georgia and Roper vs. Simmons.

In the year 1976, in the state of Georgia, the defendant Gregg was charged with armed robbery and the murder of two men. The State of Georgia Supreme Court had sentenced Gregg to death. The defendant Gregg appealed to the United States Supreme Court, on the grounds that the death penalty should be considered a cruel and unusual punishment, therefore rendering capital punishment unconstitutional. The Court held that, with proper procedure and guidelines for sentencing, that capital punishment was constitutional and that the State of Georgia had met the criteria for the imposition of the death penalty. This Court case has set the precedent that capital punishment is constitutional if certain guidelines and criteria are met. In other words, an offender may not be put to death for the sale of drugs whereas a violent offense to the

Crook off of a bridge at a nearby state park. The evidence was overwhelmingly against Simmons and he was sentenced to the death after the jury found him guilty. After many years of appeals, the case worked its way up the court system and the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Simmons appealed on the grounds that the execution of a juvenile is unconstitutional due to the eighth amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. In a shocking turn of events the United States Supreme Court held