Critique Based on American Judiciary Laws - Essay Example

Running Head: CRITIQUE BASED ON AMERICAN JUDICIARY LAWS Furman v. Georgia The Furman v. Georgia was a Supreme Court case involving William Henry Furman and Georgia that required a degree of consistency as far as the application of the death sentence was concerned. William Furman was the main figure in the above mentioned case that led to the United States Supreme Court outlawing the use of the death penalty in most cases. The murder in question took place in Savannah, Georgia on 11th August 1967. The victim in question awoke in the middle of the night in his house to find William Furman performing burglary. Furman's unsworn statement indicated that he tripped on his gun firing accidentally. This killed his victim on the spot. The unsworn statement however contradicted his earlier statement to the police that indicated that he had fired blindly while escaping1. Whichever the case though, William Furman would have been found guilty of killing (murder). This was due to the fact that the shooting took place during the commission of a felony. The suspect was tried for murder and found guilty largely on the basis of his statement. After a one day trial, Furman was found guilty uf murdering William Micke and was sentenced to death on 20th September 1968. (Roensch 2007) The Furman v. Georgia raised an important question of law on whether the imposition and carrying out capital punishment in that particular case and two others constituted cruel and unusual punishment. If this was the case then the ruling on death penalty violated the Eighth an Fourteenth Amendments. In a five to four decision the court decided that the death penalty ruling did constitute to cruel and unusual punishment and thus violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. The justices articulated their views on over two hundred pages of concurrences and dissents. The issue of race came up with concurrences on the arbitrary nature on death penalty passed on black defendants. The other two cases consolidated together with the Furman v. Georgia were Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas2. Jackson v. Georgia Jackson was an African American man who had escaped from a work gang only to go and commit rape and robbery at a woman's house. He was thus convicted of both rape and robbery and sentenced to death. During the trial, a psychiatrist refuted claims that Jackson was schizophrenic. He therefore declared Jackson competent to stand trial. Branch v. Texas Branch was also an African American male in Texas convicted of rape on an elderly woman. Though the trial determined that Branch was of below average IQ (lowest fourth percentile in his class to be precise), he was sentenced to death. Furman v. Georgia Trial Concurrences The Furman v. Georgia and the other two consolidated case were presided by the United States Supreme Courts Justices named below The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Powell Mr. Justice White Mr. Justice Blackman Mr. Justice Marshall Mr. Justice Stewart Mr. Justice Brennan Mr. Justice Douglas Mr. Justice Powell Mr. Justice Rehnquist The concurring justices were Justice Douglas, Justice Brennan, Justice Stewart, Justice White, and Justice Marshall. This section will provide an articulation of the concurring judges and their respective arguments. It is important to note that the Furman v. Georgia case turned out to be a landmark case and revolutionary in some ways. It impacted or changed American Criminal Law in the following ways. The Branch v. Texas and Jackson v. Georgia case invalidated the death penalty on rape. This was a monumental ruling that had impact on thousands of cases throughout the United States since then up to this date. The decision ruled the requirement of for a degree of consistency in the application of the death sentence. The question of the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty on numerous cases throughout the United States arose. This was due to the fact that carrying out the death sentence on those and similar cases constituted to cruel and unusual punishment. It was therefore cited that such a ruling was unconstitutional since it violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. The issue of racial bias surfaced and there were concurrences that the death sentence had been imposed with bias against African American defendants. This forced states and national legislatures to revise their statutes on the death penalty to make sure it was not imposed on discriminatory bases. Between 1972 and 1976, thirty seven states enacted other new capital punishment laws. They were aimed at overcoming court's concerns on arbitrary imposition of the death punishment. Overall, after the Furman v. Georgia case, the death sentence would only be passed where substantial evidence was available and the nature of crime was enough to warrant that3. The following concurring arguments and the following dissenting views basically represent the discussion on the unending debate on capital punishment on whether it should be applied on defendants and under what circumstances. Mr. Justice Douglas Justice Douglas was of the view that imposition and execution of the death sentence on the three defendants Furman, Branch, and Jackson constituted to cruel and unusual punishment. He believed such a sentence violated the Eighth an Fourteenth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional. He stated that there was an assumption that the death sentence passed on the defendants was not cruel unless the manner of execution was inhuman and barbarous. He noted that there was a certain degree of generality of law as far as inflicting capital punishment is concerned. The validity of the law in the books was one thing; its application could lead to quite different conclusions. According to him, it would appear incontestable that capital punishment on the defendants is unusual if it discriminates him on the premise of race, religion, social class or position. (Hinds 2005) Such a ruling would be unusual if it is imposed under any procedure that gives room for the play of any sought of bias or prejudice. Though he cited that the words 'cruel and unusual' may be indefinite in meaning, they implied that the penalty or punishment is barbaric. Thus, a punishment should be considered unusual if it is imposed arbitrarily in or discriminatorily. It is important at this stage to note that Justice Douglas was mainly referring mainly to the Branch and Jackson who were both African Americans. Justice Douglas revisited a short history on the environment surrounding the making of the Eighth Amendment. He pointed that the target of the Eighth amendment was not blacks or the poor but rather the dissenters. The death penalty was therefore used as a tool of vengeance against the opposition. It was in this light that there was desire for equality therefore the ban on cruel and unusual punishment. He therefore found the sentence imposed on the three defendants 'pregnant with discrimination'. He indicated that discrimination was an ingredient that was not compatible with the idea of equal protection of the laws. It was therefore implicit in the ban on cruel and unusual punishment4. Mr. Justice Brennan Justice Brennan together with Justice Marshall had an 'unorthodox' or liberal view on the issue of death penalty as a whole. According to them the death penalty was in itself a cruel and unusual punishment and was incompatible with evolving standards of decency of the modern society. Justice Brennan conceded that the death penalty was a traditional penalty that had been employed throughout history. He however noted that its execution and constitutional background is an appropriate subject of inquiry5. Justice Brennan raises the issue of textual consideration raised by the Bill of Rights. According to him, the Fifth Amendment cites that some crimes are punishable by death. So the framers of the Eighth Amendment were aware of the existence of the death penalty as a common form of punishment. But we cannot make further inference that they had intentions to exempt death penalty from prohibition as a cruel and unusual punishment. Justice Brennan identified the main question as whether the deliberate infliction of death is in contemporary society 'consistent with the command of the clause that the state may not inflict punishments that do not comport with human dignity'. If the State arbitrarily imposes an unusually severe punishment that the society does not regard as decent, then this is denial of human dignity. He proposes a significantly less drastic punishment. (Roensch 2007) He therefore considers the death penalty in modern times as a cruel and unusual punishment. Since the United States society strongly affirms the sanctity of life, then death is a unique form of punishment in the country. Below are some of the justifications that Justice Brennan makes for his stance on death sentence: The death sentence attracts the most debates nationally. No other form of punishment has been so continuously restricted. Not a single state has abolished prisons, but some have already abolished the death sentence. The uniqueness of the death penalty can only be accrued from its extreme severity. This is in terms of physical and mental suffering Death is not an ordinary crime for any crime. If there is high probability that a dehumanizing penalty is being imposed arbitrarily, the society will therefore disapprove of its affliction. Though capital punishment has been employed throughout history, history is serving the contrary since this form of punishment is growing increasingly rare. We don't have enough reason to believe that the death penalty necessarily protects the society. Justice Brennan therefore concluded that the death penalty was unusually severe and also degrading. A high probability existed that death penalty is inflicted arbitrarily and its rejection in the society was virtually total. He also indicated that the death sentence had not been proved to serve any purpose more effectively than imprisonment. Mr. Justice Marshall The Justice starts his articulation with a short history on the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment stating that it derives from English Law. As indicated earlier both Justice Marshall and Justice Brennan were of the view that death penalty in itself constituted to a cruel and unusual punishment. Justice Marshall Recounts that in 1583, (when the issue of cruel and unusual punishment was first discussed) there was a myriad of inhumane punishments whose end result was death. Since torture and other cruel forms of punishments are considered cruel and unusual punishment by the Eighth Amendment, then conventional wisdom should be that death, a more severe form, ranked similarly. As far as language is concerned, Justice Marshall points out that the cruel and unusual reference 'must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency'6. This is in connection to the progress of a maturing society. Thus, since by large the public opinion is that capital punishment is cruel; the death penalty may be constitutional but not necessarily binding on us. Justice Marshall points out that there are some forms of punishments that inherently involve a lot of physical pain. These forms of punishments with such a degree of suffering cannot be tolerated in civilized societies. A punishment, such as the death penalty is cruel and unusual if it is excessive and serves no valid legislative purpose. A punishment may also not be excessive and serves legislative purpose but the general public hates it. The above scenarios play themselves out in capital punishment. Justice Marshall is of the view that public opinion does not support the death sentence and therefore we should have nothing to do with it. Following this argument, Marshall argues that since the death sentence is not a recent phenomenon, if it violates the United States Constitution, it does so because it is contrary to existing moral values and is also excessive and unnecessary. Justice Marshall goes ahead to point out the purposes conceivably served by the death sentence namely: Prevention of repetitive criminal acts Retribution Deterrence Encouragement of guilty pleas and confessions Eugenics Economy (Hinds 2005) Justice Marshall proceeds to negate these justifications for capital punishments in one way or the other. He for instance says that history and in particular the Eighth Amendment shows that retribution for its own sake is improper. He also indicates that there is evidence that the death sentence actually increases crime rather that deter it. There is also data that capital punishment has virtually no effect on murder rate in prisons. He therefore concludes that the death sentence cannot be justified on the basis of its deterrent effect. In conclusion, Justice Marshall states that abolishing the death sentence will not malign the United States form of government but on the contrary will pay homage to it. (Roensch 2007) Dissenting Mr. Chief Justice Burger Chief Justice Burger states that the constitutional inquiry must be separated from personal feelings. The morality and efficacy of capital punishment should not be the guiding argument but rather the meaning and applicability of the unclear discourse of the Eighth Amendment. To him therefore priority should be placed on trying to understand its uncertain language and not on what is moral or not. Chief Justice Burger indicates that the ban on cruel and unusual punishments is among the most difficult to translate. When one is called upon to translate such a clause into judicially manageable terms, he or she should not seek clarification from morality or public opinion. The haze that surrounds that particular Amendment should not be used as an excuse to impose our personal feelings into law. Chief Justice Burger states that the founding fathers were aware of the death punishment and there is no evidence that they intended to abolish capital punishment through the amendment. There concern was not capital punishment but prevention of torture. He proceeds to note that the Eighth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment were adopted on the same day in1791; this means that capital punishment according to the language of the day was not cruel. If for more than a hundred and eighty years no court has doubted the constitutionality of capital punishment, why should we (Hinds 2005) Mr. Justice Blackmun Justice Blackmun does not personally support the death sentence. In fact, in his opinion, such a case provides excruciating agony to him. He has distaste, antipathy, and abhorrence to capital punishment in all respects. He agrees with most of the issues raised by the concurring justices. Furthermore he came from a state that outlawed the use of the death sentence back in 1911. This however does not stop him from being among the dissenting voices. He believes that the constitution is superior to personal feelings and should be followed to the letter where such a situation arises. According to him, the death penalty was accepted and assumed as not unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment. Similar sentiments were echoed by Justice Powell and Justice Rehnquist7. Conclusion The Furman v. Georgia case was a landmark one that has had a huge impact on thousands of cases involving the death penalty. It sparked a debate that has seen many states ban capital punishment as a form of punishment for various cases. References Hinds, M. J. (2005) Details of Furman V. Georgia and the Death Penalty Debate: Debating Supreme Court Decisions. Enslow Publishers pp 45- 63 Roensch, Greg. (2007) Furman v. Georgia: Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Chelsea House pp 46 - 56 Smith, S. F. (2008). "The Supreme Court and the Politics of Death". Virginia Law Review 94 (2): 283-383. Furman v. Georgia U. S. Supreme court Retrieved on 14th May 2009 from www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/furman Read More