On November 21, 1973, Troy Leon Gregg and his companion robbed and murdered Fred Edward Simmons and Bob Durwood Moore, two innocent people who were giving them rides. Gregg was convicted for his actions and was given the death penalty. He argued that the sentence was violating his eighth amendment which is “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (U.S. Const. amend.VIII.) The Supreme Court ruled that it did not violate the eighth amendment and was constitutional. This brings up the question “Was the case properly determined by the Supreme Court or should it be Congress to decide?” Furman v. Georgia (1972) was a case similar to Gregg’s. A man was convicted of murder and burglary. He has sentenced the death penalty. The Court later concluded that …show more content…
This case made 600 inmate 's death sentence reduced to life in prison.
Every year there are tens of thousands of murders, and yet only about 300 murderers are sentenced to death. The death penalty is a permanent action, that is taken against those who are convicted of murder. There is a saying that goes “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. This saying seems fair and is generally agreeable, yet why is there so much talk and commotion about abolishing the death penalty? If murderers deserve to die, then shouldn’t they be sentenced to the death penalty?
However, both Atkins and Jones claimed the other shot Nesbitt, rather than themselves. Atkins was convicted of capital murder and related crimes by a Virginia jury and sentenced to death. Affirming, the Virginia Supreme Court relied on Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, in rejecting Atkins' contention that he could not be sentenced to death because he is mentally retarded ("FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.", 2017) The Constitutional principles this case is based on the Eight Amendment which says, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
New York Times (NYT) column-writer, conversely a certified lawyer, Adam Liptak, in his article, “Supreme Court Rejects Alabama Death Row Inmate’s Appeal”, describes how a death-row inmate from Alabama requests death by a firing squad as opposed to lethal injection, that contains the sedative midazolam, for his death sentence, but was rejected by the Supreme Court of the United States. Liptak’s purpose is to demonstrate that the Supreme Court’s decision to reject the appeal may have been unconstitutional due to the means of execution by lethal injection causing “prolonged torture” rather than a quick death due to midazolam, which disputes the eighth amendment in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Liptak develops
Georgia. Gregg committed two counts of murder. These murders were also committed alongside an armed robbery of the victims for their money and automobile. All of these factors, along with the murders themselves being horrible and inhumane, make the death penalty, in this case, not a cruel or unusual punishment, and completely constitutional. When their argument of the 8th amendment fails, the petitioners turn to racial discrimination to explain when Leon Gregg was punished by death.
It was not until the 21 century that the Supreme Court extended this to cover execution of those below 18 year of age and those who have a mental handicap. But they also ruled that other punishments should be considered cruel and unusual under circumstances, as in the 1958 case Trop vs. Dulles (). This case stated that the removal of a person's U.S. citizenship was unconstitutional because it caused them to be total destruction of society. Another case in 1977 was Coker vs. Georgia were the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional, for those found guilty of rape but the victim was not killed, to be sentenced to death ().
And while standing before the Supreme Court on January 17th, 1972, he persistently argued that the death penalty in the state of Georgia did, in fact, violate the United States Constitution. Amsterdam stated how the 8th Amendment discusses that the government is not allowed to constitute cruel and unusual punishment
The most important issue that must be addressed in this case is the principle of the “evolving standards of decency” and the uses of a national consensus. The “evolving standards of decency” were developed by Trop v. Dulles and have been implemented in one way or another in all of the precedents dealing with “cruel and unusual” punishment. It is important to treat these principles as an important aspect of “cruel and unusual” punishment jurisprudence, therefore turning from these set of principles would be foolish and a disregard for every precedent. However, it is important to acknowledge that each case satisfies the standards by using a different method; some use the presence or lack of state legislature as a judgment of consensus while others look at foreign countries.
The 8th amendment states that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”. Justice Samuel and four other justices conclude that the lethal injection does not cause harm and does not violate the 8th amendment according to this article. “ Testimony from both sides supports the District Court’s conclusion that midazolam(medicine) can render a person insensate to pain” says Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Justice
The case of Graham vs Florida cleared out any confusion about the LWOP. When Terrace Graham was 16 years old, he was convicted of armed burglary and attempted armed robbery. He served a 12 month sentence and was released. Six months later, Graham was tried and convicted by a Florida State Court of armed home robbery and he was sentenced to life in prison without parole. On appeal, he argued that the imposition of a life sentence without parole on a juvenile violated the Eighth Amendment and moreover constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and that violated the Eighth Amendment.
But are we in the 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 would 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’ “ (Bomboy). In other words, Livermore was arguing that all citizens who commit horrible crime do deserve severe punishments for the crimes that they commit, and until the government figures out a way to place restrictions and guidelines on the penalties that we believe are morally proper to give, then they cannot hold back from reprimanding those citizens. Consequently, The Founding Fathers created the Eighth Amendment to be intended for further generations to interpret the meaning of “cruel” and “unusual” over time (Donnell). The amendment was then ratified in 1791 nevertheless, the Eighth Amendment and the death penalty is still highly debated today because the differences in interpretations
The Eighth Amendment was created to prohibit cruel punishments that the colonists would receive from the British. The British brought colonists over to an unfair trial and then received punishment that sometimes would be death. The writers of the wanted to make sure that the colonists received the fair trial and fair punishment they deserve. The Eight Amendment was ratified in December 5, 1791 as a part of the Bill of Rights. The Eighth Amendment has not been changed since the ratification in 1791.
Although the death penalty in Texas costs about three times more than life in prison without parole, it is reserved as the punishment of robbing another of their rights to life, freedom, and safety (Deathpenaltyinfo). It is a valid question to wonder why we should spare the life of one, opting to provide for all of their basics needs when they without question robbed another of their rights to life, freedom, and safety through murder or another cruel action. The case of Andre Thomas raised questions of whether or not the mentally incompetent should be eligible for the death penalty. Thomas murdered two children and the wife he was separated from, maintaining that the act was dictated by God. Statements by Thomas conveyed that he knew that what he had done was wrong after he had after committing the crime.
In conclusion, Montana Lost and The US Supreme Court decision was
Context and Constitutional Question Gregg v. Georgia is a court case that started with the “prosecution for a double murder committed in the course of a robbery”(Coenen, 2004). It was a court case among many others involving the issue of the death penalty. The constitutional question that gave Gregg v. Georgia importance was whether “the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment?”(Gregg v. Georgia). The case was basically about if the death penalty violates the 8th and 14th amendment of the constitution because it can be viewed as a punishment that is too cruel or severe, as killing someone over a crime is unusual to some extent. This was the main question of the
It’s Not working out. By:Taija Jones. The 8th amendment says “Excessive bail shall not be required, Nor excessive fines imposed, Nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” . With that being said if the 8th amendment applies for cruel punishments of death penalties then why is it still happening.