Furman vs. Georgia was a Supreme Court case that happened in the early 1970s, more specifically January 17, 1972. In a historical context, we were just coming out of the heart of the civil rights era and moving into a rather good economic time that preceded the crash of the late 1970s. People were regaining their American spirit as the Vietnam war was winding down, but a domestic crisis was piling up as Richard Nixon’s impeachment trial was happening. Basically, this case surrounded a burglary case and questions of the strictness and harshness of penalties for the crime, more specifically the death penalty.
Furman, the burglar, was in a private home looting certain belongings when a member of the family caught him right in the act. While Furman tried to run away, he tripped and ended up falling. Because of the fall, a gun accidentally slipped out of his pocket and hit the floor, causing it to go off and kill a resident. Furman was convicted of murder and was sentenced to death. Many people thought that this penalty was too harsh, as Furman didn’t want to kill the person but accidentally did. Others believed that the penalty was just, as Furman had to pay the price of death because it resulted in an innocent person dying. The question the court ultimately tried to answer was whether or not carrying out the death penalty in cases like this was a violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Just for a refresher, the Eighth Amendment rules against doling out an unusual and cruel punishment that does not fit the crime. The Fourteenth Amendment is rules for the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. Anyways, the main idea of this case was that Furman didn’t deserve the death penalty because he wasn’t purposefully trying to kill anyone.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Furman vs. Georgia".
The members sitting on the court were all male, but the court was rather divided on this issue, as they ruled in Furman’s favor 5-4. The Court believed that the death penalty was not necessary and cruel in these cases, as this violated the Eight and Fourteenth Amendment. They ruled that these punishments were rather unfair and this made states rethink their approach to death penalty punishments as well as other types of punishments and crimes. What is important here is that many of the Justices also believed that it was appropriate for the death penalty to be enacted in this case because the defendant was robbing someone in the first place and by his selfishness, he accidentally killed someone and this would affect the family for generations.
While these dissenters probably didn’t put much weight in the 8th Amendment, it’s important that this conversation was brought about the country as we were able to better understand punishments surrounding the death penalty. The court’s ruling also encouraged more oversight for black males who were convicted of the death penalty far more than other type of citizens in different demographics, and especially more often than whites. In today’s court, I think that we’d still come to the same conclusion and maybe even stronger towards this decision in a more favorable ruling for Furman.
I think society has evolved that we would view this case as not warranting of the death penalty but rather life in prison. I think that the death penalty should be reserved for criminals who try to hurt people and kill them, not for people who accidentally hurt people and kill them. I have a friend who was in a car accident and the crash accidentally killed someone. If he was convicted of the death penalty, I don’t think that would be a just punishment that fit the type of crime.
