Gregg Vs Georgia Case Study

1054 Words5 Pages

In the the Supreme Court case Gregg Vs. Georgia, Justice Stewart concluded that “We now hold that the punishment of death does not invariably violate the Constitution.” (GREGG v. GEORGIA, 1976), answering the question of whether or not capital punishment is ever unconstitutional. Some may argue that Stewart is saying that the death penalty is sometimes considered constitutional, however, it is important to note that if we as Americans don’t enforce the constitutional rights of human beings at all times, the foundation of our nation will slowly begin to lose its strength. If in any way something can be declared as unconstitutional, then from there on out it will never fall into the realm of being constitutional. The Court has to come face to face with the claim that the administration of death, regardless of the offense, is a cruel and unusual punishment, is morally unethical for the government to be conducting, and is a violation of the Constitution. Aside from the fact that death is not only a severe punishment because of the amount of pain and its irreversible finality, the …show more content…

Sentencing a criminal who is mentally retarded is directly going against the Eighth Amendment, which attempts to ‘evolve standards of decency’ in our nation. The Supreme Court of the United States prohibited the execution with mental deficiencies in the Atkins v. Virginia case in 2002. The Constitution enforces a substantive limitation on the States’ abilities to take the life of a criminal who is mentally retarded. (ATKINS V. VIRGINIA, 2002) Ethnic discrimination, financial influences, and factors such as mental retardation are three huge reasons why it is morally necessary to refuse to use the death penalty as a suitable mean of punishment, for this method would time after time fall under the realm of unequal or unjust punishment. (Stevenson, B.

Open Document