Furman v. Georgia, Supreme Court

Furman v. Georgia, Supreme Court, 1972

Facts of the Case

William Henry Furman was burglarizing a private home when a resident discovered him. In an attempt to flee, Furman tripped and his gun accidentally discharged, killing the resident. Furman was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. He challenged the constitutionality of his death sentence, arguing that it violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. His case was consolidated with two other cases, Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas, which also involved individuals sentenced to death.

Constitutional Question

Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Arguments

For Furman:

  • The death penalty, as applied, was arbitrary and capricious, leading to discriminatory and inconsistent sentencing.
  • The imposition of the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment.
  • The lack of standardized guidelines for imposing the death penalty resulted in a high risk of arbitrary and discriminatory application.

For Georgia:

  • The death penalty was a traditional and accepted form of punishment for serious crimes such as murder.
  • The state’s interest in deterring heinous crimes justified the use of the death penalty.
  • The existing legal framework provided adequate protections against arbitrary sentencing.

The Decision

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in favor of Furman. The Court held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The justices were deeply divided, issuing nine separate opinions with no single rationale commanding a majority. However, the common thread was the arbitrary and discriminatory manner in which the death penalty was applied.

Significance

Furman v. Georgia led to a de facto moratorium on capital punishment across the United States, as states were forced to revise their death penalty statutes to address the Court’s concerns about arbitrary sentencing. The decision highlighted the need for clear and consistent guidelines to ensure that the death penalty was applied fairly and without discrimination. This case set the stage for subsequent rulings that shaped modern capital punishment jurisprudence, including the establishment of procedural safeguards to mitigate arbitrary and discriminatory imposition of the death penalty.