IEJS > Law > Procedure > Punishment

Leading Cases in Punishment

• FURMAN v. GEORGIA, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)  [Death Penalty]
  "Imposition and carrying out of death penalty in these cases held to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments."
   
• WOODSON v. NORTH CAROLINA, 428 U.S. 280 (1976)  [Death Penalty]
  The death penalty cannot be mandatory for any crime since it does not allow for the consideration of the character of the offender and circumstances surrounding the crime.
   
• GREGG v. GEORGIA, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)  [Death Penalty]
  "In its review of a death sentence (which is automatic), the State Supreme Court must consider whether the sentence was influenced by passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor; whether the evidence supports the finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance; and whether the death sentence "is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant." If the court affirms the death sentence it must include in its decision reference to similar cases that it has considered."
   
•  COKER v. GEORGIA, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) [Death Penalty]
  The death penalty for rape was disproportionate to the crime and was thus unconstitutional.
   
• GODFREY v. GEORGIA, 446 U.S. 420 (1980)  [Death Penalty]
  "However, the Georgia courts did not so limit the statute in the present case. Petitioner did not torture or commit an aggravated battery upon his victims, or cause either of them to suffer any physical injury preceding their deaths. Nor can the death sentences be upheld on the ground that the murders were "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that [they] involved . . . depravity of mind." Petitioner's crimes cannot be said to have reflected a consciousness materially more "depraved" than that of any person guilty of murder."
   
• ENMUND v. FLORIDA, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) [Death Penalty]
  "The death penalty, which is unique in its severity and irrevocability, is an excessive penalty for the robber, who, as such, does not take human life. Here, the focus must be on petitioner's culpability, not on those who committed the robbery and killings. He did not kill or intend to kill and thus his culpability is different from that of the robbers who killed, and it is impermissible  for the State to treat them alike and attribute to petitioner the culpability of those who killed the victims."
   
• WILLIAMS v. ILLINOIS, 399 U.S. 235 (1970) [Fines]
  "Though a State has considerable latitude in fixing the punishment for state crimes and may impose alternative sanctions, it may not under the Equal Protection Clause subject a certain class of convicted defendants to a period of imprisonment beyond the statutory maximum solely by reason of their indigency."

This page available at: