User:Adp0001113/sandbox

Furman v. Georgia, was a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled on the requirement for a degree of consistency in the application of the death penalty. The case led to a de facto moratorium on capital punishment throughout the United States, which came to an end when Gregg v. Georgia was decided in 1976.

The Supreme Court consolidated Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas with the Furman decision, and thus also invalidated the death penalty for rape (which was confirmed post-Gregg in Coker v. Georgia). The Court had also intended to include the case of Aikens v. California, but between the time Aikens had been heard in oral argument and a decision was to be issued, the Supreme Court of California decided in California v. Anderson that the death penalty violated the state constitution, thus the Aikens case was dismissed as moot since all death cases in California were overturned.

Background
In the Furman v. Georgia case, the victim awoke in the middle of the night to find William Henry Furman committing burglary in his house. At trial, in an unsworn statement allowed under Georgia criminal procedure, Furman said that while trying to escape, he tripped and the weapon he was carrying fired accidentally, killing the victim. This contradicted his prior statement to police that he had turned and blindly fired a shot while fleeing. In either event, because the shooting occurred during the commission of a felony, Furman would have been guilty of murder and eligible for the death penalty under then-extant state law, according to the felony murder rule. Furman was tried for murder and was found guilty based largely on his own statement. He was sentenced to death. Although he was sentenced to death, the punishment was never carried out.

Jackson v. Georgia, like Furman, was also a death penalty case confirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia. Unlike Furman however, the convicted in Jackson had not killed, but attempted to commit armed robbery and committed rape in the process of doing so. Branch v. Texas was brought to the Supreme Court of the United States on appeal on certiorari to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Like Jackson, Branch was convicted of rape.

Holding
In a 5-4 decision, the Court's one-page per curiam opinion held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. Each of the justices filed their own concurrence or dissent; none were able to gather more than three other justices to support them. Only Justices Brennan and Marshall believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional in all instances. Other concurrences focused on the arbitrary nature with which death sentences have been imposed, often indicating a racial bias against black defendants. The Court's decision forced states and the national legislature to rethink their statutes for capital offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner.

Analysis
Although Furman didn't have the whole consent of the panel of judges, he still had a glimpse of winning. The Supreme Court split five to four in overturning the imposition of the death penalty in each of the consolidated cases. The majority could not agree as to a rationale and did not produce a controlling opinion. Instead, each of the nine justices wrote separately, with none of the five justices constituting the majority joining in the opinion of any other.

Justice Potter Stewart, as one of the majority, wrote that: "These death sentences are cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual. For, of all the people convicted of rapes and murders in 1967 and 1968, many just as reprehensible as these, the petitioners are among a capriciously  selected random handful upon whom the sentence of death has in fact been imposed. My concurring Brothers have demonstrated that, if any basis can be discerned for the selection of these few to be sentenced to death, it is the constitutionally impermissible basis of race. See McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (1964) But racial discrimination has not been proved, and I put it to one side. I simply conclude that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments cannot tolerate the infliction of a sentence of death under legal systems that permit this unique penalty to be so wantonly and so freakishly imposed."

Concurrences

 * Justices Byron White and William O. Douglas expressed similar concerns about the apparent arbitrariness with which death sentences were imposed under the existing laws.


 * Justices Brennan and Marshall concurred on the grounds that the death penalty was "cruel and unusual punishment" proscribed by the Eighth Amendment as incompatible with the evolving standards of decency of a contemporary society. Because the opinions of Justices Stewart and White were the narrowest, finding only that the death penalty as applied under the statutes in existence at the time was cruel and unusual, theirs are often considered the controlling majority opinions.

Dissents
Chief Justice Burger and Justices Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, and William H. Rehnquist, each appointed by President Richard Nixon, dissented. They argued that capital punishment had always been regarded as appropriate under the Anglo-American legal tradition for serious crimes and that the text of the Constitution implicitly authorized United States death penalty laws because of the reference in the Fourteenth Amendment to the taking of "life."

Aftermath
In the following four years, 37 states enacted new death penalty laws aimed at overcoming the court's concerns about arbitrary imposition of the death penalty. Several statutes mandating bifurcated trials, with separate guilt-innocence and sentencing phases, and imposing standards to guide the discretion of juries and judges in imposing capital sentences, were upheld in a series of Supreme Court decisions in 1976, led by Gregg v. Georgia. Other statutes enacted in response to Furman which mandated imposition of the death penalty upon conviction of a certain crime were struck down in cases of that same year.

The courts struggled with the demands of the new doctrine. Between 1976 and 1982,70 percent of death sentences were reversed by federal courts due to fundamental constitutional violations. During this period there were only six executions, four carried out on suicidal death-row prisoners who forfeited appeals and demanded death. It became increasingly clear that states were unable to meet basic constitutional requirements in death cases. By the mid-eighties, the inability of most states to avoid constitutional error in capital cases prompted the Supreme Court to erect procedural barriers to postconviction review, relieving federal courts of the growing burden‘of insuring fairness in every case. By restricting the scope of habeas corpus-the federal remedy for challenging most death sentences-the Court began limiting the power of federal courts to address even gross violations of the Constitution. Racially biased jury selection, prosecutorial misconduct, even evidence of innocence could all be ignored by federal courts if somewhere along the line an unwary defense lawyer had failed to object at precisely the right moment, cited the wrong amendment or legal authority or otherwise failed to comply with proper procedure. Twenty-one executions took place in 1984, a 400 percent increase over the previous year. Despite the procedkal restrictions on capital litigation, challenges to the death penalty continued to be brought before the Court on such grounds as inadequate legal representation, disproportionate imposition on black or Hispanic defendants, police or prosecutorial misconduct, and unreliable’evidence. In response, the Court retracted even substantive constitutional rights to accommodate more executions.

Human Rights
Since the decision of Furman v. Georgia some 135 countries have abolished the death penalty, in law or practice, including virtually every other liberal democracy. In retaining it the United States has kept company with countries like China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia that have been charged with humam right violations.