What was the significance of furman v georgia

User login Login is not necessary to use the curriculum. However, users who register will have free access to supplementary research materials. Create new account Request new password. Search Search this site:. Free Email Updates. It was also concerned about the use of harsh punishments in an arbitrary and disproportionate way.

In , the Court ruled in Wilkerson v. Then in , the Court broadened its criteria in Weems v. The Justices referenced an earlier death-sentence case, In re Kemmler from , which held that the first use of the electric chair was constitutional under the 8th and 14th Amendments. Later, the Court ruled that it was permissible to execute a person with the electric chair, for a second time, after a first attempt failed. However, in the Court changed direction in Furman v.

We cannot say from facts disclosed in these records that these defendants were sentenced to death because they were black. Yet our task is not restricted to an effort to divine what motives impelled these death penalties. Rather, we deal with a system of law and of justice that leaves to the uncontrolled discretion of judges or juries the determination whether defendants committing these crimes should die or be imprisoned. Under these laws no standards govern the selection of the penalty.

People live or die, dependent on the whim of one man or of The opinions of Justices Brennan and Marshall went even further. They argued that the death penalty was unconstitutional in any circumstance. Chief Justice Warren E. Powell, and William H. Rehnquist all dissented. In support of the death penalty, the justices pointed to a long history of imposing capital punishment for the most serious crimes. Callie Maslowsky. In the case of Furman v. Georgia , the Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty on the grounds that its use constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

No majority opinion was written, but the plurality opinions all agreed that the amount of discretion in death penalty sentencing left too much room for the death penalty to be given arbitrarily.

When the death penalty was reinstated in Gregg v. Georgia , the Court approved schemes that limited the discretion of sentencing bodies by providing sentencing guidelines, automatically appealing all death penalty cases for review, or taking other steps toe ensure there was some methodology determining which death penalty-eligible criminals actually receive it.