The Execution Of A Burglary At Micke 's Home

(Lamar 34). Many in fovor of the death penalty feel that if a sentence of death is handed

Furman’s attorney had to submit an argument and so did the lower court. Both were nervous, because they knew this case would have a huge impact on capital punishment through the years.

In the United States, 36 states participate in capital punishment in one or more of the five different forms, including lethal injection, electrocution, gas chambers, firing squad, and hanging (“Description of Execution”). After being banned in 1972, several states sought to bring back capital punishment by providing sentence guidelines for both jury and judges when deciding the fit case in which to impose death (“Introduction to the Death Penalty”). These guidelines proved the punishment was constitutional under the Eight Amendment, proving it wasn’t “cruel and unusual” punishment under the correct circumstances. Three procedural reforms were approved by the case Gregg vs. Georgia, including bifurcated trials (separating guilt and penalty phases of trial), automatic appellate reviews of court decisions, and proportionality review to help eliminate sentencing disparities (“Introduction to the Death Penalty”). Ever since these changes in 1976, the death penalty

Because of the failed objective, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said that a person cannot get rid of his/her death sentence unless surmounting a Texas rule that is analogous federal rule. The Almanza v. State case made Texas adopt a rule stating that a criminal defendant who does not object to the jury’s instruction will not receive a reversal just because the instruction mistake was harmful. Instead, the defendant must meet a heightened standard, but if the standard is not met the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals will make the petitioner’s sentence stand (Kennedy).

In both gregg v. georgia and furman v. georgia the petitioners were found guilty and sentence to the death penalty. The jury must have evidence to allow them to put the petitioners on death penalty. In the end both gregg and furman were sentence the death penalty but was seen as cruel and unusual

This article from CNN’s website discusses how a Florida judge recently sentenced Timothy Hurst, who is convicted on a murder charge of a young woman who was bound, gagged, and stabbed over 60 times, to death row. A jury recommended that Hurst be put on death row, but was not present during the ruling. The judge held a separate hearing, without a jury present, and imposed the death penalty on Hurst. The judge’s sentence for Hurst was ruled unconstitutional because it violated the sixth amendment, which includes the right to an impartial jury, and a recommendation from a jury is not enough for a ruling to be made. This case is now being send to Florida’s Supreme Court for further proceedings. This could impact actions towards other inmates

In sentencing proportionality refers to consistency of punishments as they relate to crime. In our attempt to govern behavior and to have it conform to society’s notion of acceptable behavior; it is

These circumstances included air craft highjacking; treason; murder for hire; murder of a judicial officer, policeman, or fireman in line of duty; and murder by a person with a previous record of violent crime. This decision made it clear that the justices did not consider the death penalty per say to be “cruel and unusual punishment” in the sense intended by the constitution.” (Davis, 196-197). The justices reaffirmed what an unbiased historical and legal analysis would reveal every time that our forefathers were not against Capitol Punishment but against the misapplication of punishment bringing about injustice.

As society has evolved, the way the death penalty has been implemented has also evolved- sometimes against the words of our Constitution. One of the more influential cases that transformed how people view the death penalty was Furman v. Georgia. This case set up a guide for limited sentencing discretion; this meant that sentencing for the death penalty would become standardized. Essentially in extreme cases, every criminal death qualified would be sent to death row and eventually executed. After disputes after Furman, cases like Woodson v. North Carolina insisted on individualized discretion when discussing the death penalty. Those in favor of Woodson believed that character ad record of an individual must be accounted especially when discussing life or death (Woodson 238). In Walton v. Arizona, Justice Scalia and Justice Blackburn dispute over the rationality of limited discretion v individualized discretion. Although each presents his case differently, both agree about the tension between the Furman’s promotion for limited discretion and Woodson’s idea of individualized sentencing discretion. In accordance with the Constitution, both Furman v. Georgia and Woodson v. North Carolina violated the Eighth Amendment in their respective ways but the current system (in terms of capital punishment provides a loose balance that ensures both the uniqueness of human beings as well as limits arbitrariness.

Synthesis- Smith and Hicock both received the death penalty even though the M’Naghten rule proves they should not have; the use of Capital Punishment in Kansas was reviewed due to this case because of their

Court declined to articulate any ftirther requirements.^* The cases described below demonstrate: (1) the Supreme Court's condemnation of a death penalty applied at least arbitrarily, if not discriminatorily,^' (2) its call for procedural protections to ensure against arbitrariness'" and racial discrimination," and (3) its rejection of a constitutional argument based on statistical evidence that current procedural protections are ineffective at guarding against arbitrariness and racial discrimination. '^ Accordingly, the following cases demonsfrate the need for states to develop mechanisms for addressing discrimination through legislation such as RJAs. 1. Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia; The Court Requires Procedural Protections In Furman

Judicial discretion was prevalent over the first half of the last three decades, but has been regulated by legislature since 1984. Discretion by definition is the authorization of deciding as one thinks fit, absolutely or within limits (Ntanda, 1999). Indeterminate sentencing, traditionally, has afforded judges considerable discretion over the resolve of criminal sentencing. “While such discretion theoretically allows judges to tailor sentences to the circumstances of individual crimes and criminals, thereby achieving a sort of ex post fairness, it also permits variation in sentences that may not be warranted by the observable facts of the case, reflecting instead the judge’s own preferences” (Miceli, 2008, p.207). The punishment

The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the emplacement of the mandatory death sentence. This declaration makes certain assumptions about crime and criminals. These assumptions include the notion that not all crimes are equal in severity. Severity of crimes differs from case to case. Manslaughter can range from a driver unintentionally killing a pedestrian to a disgruntled ex-employee shooting his ex-boss. One of these manslaughter cases proves intentional, while the other case proves accidental. Both cases fit the description of manslaughter, but both men are not necessarily menaces to society. The driver made a mistake, whereas the shooter did not. As evaluations of each case persist, the driver would likely receive a lesser sentence.

Even with some of the issues at hand indeterminate sentencing is making a comeback. This is now happening even more as our prisons are becoming overcrowded. In turn, allowing more room for judicial or parole board discretion. Prosecutors are exercising discretion when they decide which of many arrests to charge and for what particular crime. Juries exercise discretion in not convicting defendants who killed under circumstances that may have justified their actions. A jury may opt to exercise discretion when it deliberates the fate of the alleged perpetrator. Parole boards also have the opportunity to excise discretion when they decide whether to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment.(Greene, E., & Heilbrun, K. 2014 pg. 10 & 11) This is being seen in many states where rehabilitation is available and viewed as a reasonable attainable outcome for offenders.

In the United States of America, we have checks and balances for a reason. Whether you agree with the way they play out or not is up for you to decide. In the case involving William Henry Furman, checks and balances were used and Mr. Furman received a fair trial. Mr. Furman was sentenced to death on September 20th, 1968 after he was was on trial for less than 24 hours. It seemed that at the beginning of everything, that the court had already made up their mind about the case because of Mr. Furman’s race and the fact that he was poor and could not even afford his own lawyer. Mr. Furman then had a second trial which was on the ruling of his previous trial where he was sentenced to death. The checks and balances system was very effective in this