The Execution Of A Burglary At Micke 's Home

Decent Essays

William Henry Furman was 25 years old when he murdered Micke, in the process of a burglary at Micke’s home. The entire trial played out over the course of seven hours in one single day. Furman was found guilty and sentenced to death. Previously, Furman was diagnosed as mentally impaired with psychotic episodes and convulsive disorder, however his trial attorney failed to mention the details pertaining to his client’s mental deficiencies. The jury only took into consideration the fact that Furman was young, black, and worked at a Superior Upholstery. Furman’s lawyers claimed to the Supreme Court that jury discretion, which is not governed by principle when it comes to imposing the death penalty for murder, results in arbitrary or …show more content…

This conclusion was reached based on the fact that the death penalty was being used unequally, mostly imposed on minorities, lacking principle and could be used whenever the jury deemed appropriate. Many changes were made as a result of the death penalty being applied capriciously and arbitrarily. The court approved four major procedural reforms in Gregg in order to get rid of the problems identified in Furman. The first change was approving guided discretion statutes, which basically set specific standards for judges and juries to use when determining whether or not to impose the death penalty. It provided a realistic balance by allowing them to consider the offender’s background, character, circumstances of the crime, and also giving the jury the possibility of having some discretion. The guided discretion ensured respect of the defendant’s basic human dignity and prevented jury nullification. Jury nullification is when a jury refuses to convict a guilty defendant in order to avoid unjust, death sentences. Moreover, proportionality review was implemented to get rid of the problems identified in Furman. Proportionality review allows the state appellate courts to compare the present sentence with sentences in previous cases, as well as, sentences imposed in similar cases in the state. This is to identify sentencing inequalities and fight towards eliminating them. However, no mitigating evidence was presented during the particular sentencing hearing that

Get Access
Get Access