Capital Punishment Is there a rational resolution to the capital punishment debate? Arguments on both sides create a hierarchy of various goals and principals in an effort to offer resolution. The principle of “common human dignity” appears to play a central role in determining the appropriateness of the death penalty as punishment. But because “common human dignity” cannot be precisely defined, other considerations - such as whether capital punishment is acceptable to society, whether the death penalty is administered in an even-handed way, and whether the purported goals can be met - are used as gauges. In Furman v. Georgia (1972), for example, the Supreme Court used the “common human dignity” principle as the basis for a test of a Georgia statute regarding capital punishment. In this case, the Supreme Court not only determined that the statute unfairly administered the death penalty, it also deemed capital punishment impermissible. The Supreme Court roughly measured “common human dignity” in terms of the pain that a punishment would exact, and a vague maxim that “humans not be treated as non-humans,” adding three additional principles to ascertain whether capital punishment passed the “human dignity” test. In the Furman case, capital punishment failed all tests. First, the Furman court indicated that the Georgia statute violated a principle that even-handedness is a necessary component for punishment. The Supreme Court demonstrated that capital punishment was inflicted primarily on racial minorities, and therefore was selective and irregular. The small number of criminals that were sentenced to death, approximately 50 per year, indicated that the punishment was not regularly or fairly applied, especially becaus... ... middle of paper ... ...apital punishment may still be administered in an arbitrary way. In making his case, Bedau points out what neither the Gregg decision nor Van Den Haag fully address - the risk that the death penalty will incorrectly execute an innocent person. Unlike its less severe counterparts, capital punishment is irrevocable and permanent, as pointed out in the Furman decision. Bedau correctly articulates what the Gregg decision, the Furman decision, and Van Den Haag exemplify - that while we can assess goals and principles to come up with a decision regarding capital punishment, the outcome of these foundations depends ultimately upon the weight we give each element. Unfortunately, the several goals and principles that are identified in the debate have no obvious rank order or “proper” weighting. Without this, there is no rational resolution of the controversy possible.
In 1972, the Furman v. Georgia case temporarily caused capital punishment in the United States to cease until distinct guidelines about the crimes that required the death penalty were written. Until states revised their laws, capital punishment was ruled cruel and unusual punishment. Before Furman, there were no clearly defined laws about what constituted capital punishment, so the process to sentence a capital criminal was much faster and easier. By adding an appeal system, most states permitted capital punishment once again, but the prisoner’s time spent on death row drastically increased. Adding an appeal system did not make killing a human being any less cruel and unusual; in fact, ordering a person to live in fear, uncertainty, and agony for an even longer period of time is crueler than quickly ending the
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.
Since Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court struck down Georgia’s death penalty due to infrequencies and the randomness of the imposition of the death penalty. (Mandery, 2012, p.135). The two justices who switched sides between the Furman case and the Gregg case, both expressed mayor concern in Furman with the infrequency and randomness with which juries imposed the death penalty. “For Justice Potter Stewart, the arbitrariness was a matter of fairness. For Justice Byron White, the concern was utilitarian a randomly and infrequently imposed death penalty could not possibly deter” (Mandery, 2012, p.135), they both expressed similar concerns about the apparent arbitrariness with which death sentences were imposed under the existing law, each found the unpredictability of the original statute fatal, it seems only fair to ask whether the revised Georgia statute has created greater rationality. (Mandery, 2012, p.135) The Supreme Court realized that the process in which defendants were being persecuted was not based a fairness practices; it was administrated in a different way by different judges, juries, prosecutors, etc. The Supreme Court found only how the death penalty was applied was cruel and unusual; it was too uneven and inconsistent. As a result of the 1972 Furman decision, hundreds of inmates on death row had their sentences commuted to life, and a significant number of those inmates have now been
In the early 1950’s, the number of executions sharply declined. Opponents of the death penalty claimed that it violated the Eighth Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Opponents also claimed the death penalty violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. In early 1972, William Furman was convicted of burglary and murder. While Furman was burglarizing a home, a resident arrived at the scene. Startled, Furman tried to flee, but tripped and fell in the process. The gun Furman was carrying discharged, killing the resident in the process. Furman did not believe he deserved the death penalty. The constitutionality of capital punishment in this circumstance was considered in the supreme co...
Therefore, with the Furman decision, the Supreme Court set the standard that a punishment would be "cruel and unusual" if it was too extreme and did not fit the crime, offended the community of people’s sense of justice, or it if was not more effective than a less risky penalty.
In Furman v Georgia in 1972, the Court invalidated all then-existing death penalty laws based on the inherent arbitrariness of their application. Most observers at the time concluded that there would never again be an execution in the United States. They were wrong. In 1976, in Gregg v. Georgia, the Court upheld Georgia's new capital-sentencing procedures, concluding that they had sufficiently reduced the problem of arbitrary and capricious imposition of death associated with earlier statutes.
The Eighth Amendment protects citizens against cruel and unusual punishment. In the 1972 Furman v. Georgia case the Court banned the use of capital punishment as it was practiced due to the indiscriminate way is which it was used. The Courts were in agreement that there were too many complications in resolving guilt and innocence while deciding on the life imprisonment or death punishment. All the justices could not completely agree on whether the idea of that capital punishment that was cruel and unusual. However, the justices did propose new statues that could be created to follow the standard of not being arbitrary. One example the justices approved was the specific mitigating and aggravating circumstances that could be used as guidelines that Courts could use when applying the death penalty in particular cases. Consequently, in the Furman case the Courts successfully struck down all the nation’s death penalty laws on the foundation of the arbitrary and prejudiced manner in which capital punishment was
25 Hugo Adams Bedau, The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997) 250.
In the court case Furman v. Georgia, was the decision on whether or not a particular punishment was cruel and unusual or how it can be determined. Justice Brennan, a major role in this case, stated, “There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is ‘cruel and unusual’.” First: The “essential predicate” is “that a punishment may not by its severity be degrading to human dignity” especially torture; A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion; A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society; and a severe punishment that is patently unnecessary. These just simply provide means to help a court decide whether a challenged punishment interferes with human dignity. Also, there a...
The death penalty remains a very controversial and highly criticized topic. Both sides argue vehemently from many different angles about the constitutionality, morality, and justice of the death penalty; but, both sides know that there must be some form of punishment for the violent criminals who commit murder. The conflict arises with the question, “what punishment is fair for a convicted murderer?”
...nion: The Death Penalty Violates Human Dignity.” The Death Penalty. Samuel Bremer, Ed. Detroit: Thomson, 2006. 24-34. Print.
In order to defend my standing in this argument I will reason that the use of capital punishment has many benefits that trump any possible objections. Special attention will be given to the topics of deterrence, the families of the victims, and the increased population that has been occurring within our prisons. Any possible objections will also be assessed including criticism regarding the monetary value of the use of the death penalty and opposition to this practice due to its characteristics, which some identify as hypocritical and inhumane. My goal in arguing for the moral justifiability of capital punishment is not to use this practice extensively but rather to reduce the use to a minimum and use it only when necessary.
Van Den Haag, Earnest, and John Conrad. The Death Penalty: A Debate. New York: Plenum Press, 1997.
Ethics and morality are the founding reasons for both supporting and opposing the death penalty, leading to the highly contentious nature of the debate. When heinous crimes are com...
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is how the saying goes. Coined by the infamous Hammurabi’s Code around 1700 BC, this ancient expression has become the basis of a great political debate over the past several decades – the death penalty. While the conflict can be whittled down to a matter of morals, a more pragmatic approach shows defendable points that are far more evidence backed. Supporters of the death penalty advocate that it deters crime, provides closure, and is a just punishment for those who choose to take a human life. Those against the death penalty argue that execution is a betrayal of basic human rights, an ineffective crime deterrent, an economically wasteful option, and an outdated method. The debate has experienced varying levels of attention over the years, but has always kept in the eye of the public. While many still advocate for the continued use of capital punishment, the process is not the most cost effective, efficient, consistent, or up-to-date means of punishment that America could be using today.