The Death Penalty Party Pooper: A Look at the Furman v. Georgia Dissents
Ah, the death penalty. A topic that sparks more debate than a lukewarm cup of coffee at a family reunion. In 1972, the Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia threw a wrench into the whole capital punishment machine. But while the majority opinion put the brakes on executions (for a while, at least), there were some justices who weren't exactly fans of this judicial roadblock. Let's dig into the dissenting opinions in Furman v. Georgia, shall we?
 |
| What Was The Dissenting Opinion In Furman V Georgia |
Not on Board with the Death-Penalty Downer Party
The dissenters in Furman v. Georgia were like the guy who shows up to a costume party in regular clothes. They just weren't feeling the majority's vibe. Here's a taste of their arguments:
QuickTip: Read line by line if it’s complex.
- History Buff Bonanza: These justices argued that the death penalty had been around for ages (think hundreds of years!), and no one had complained much before. They pointed out that the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," hadn't exactly thrown a fit about executions up to that point.
- State Knows Best They believed the decision of whether or not to have the death penalty belonged with the states, not some fancy federal judges in fancy robes. Basically, it's a states' rights kinda thing.
- "Evolving Standards" Shmevolving Standards: The majority opinion mentioned something about the "evolving standards of decency" making the death penalty icky. The dissenters scoffed at this notion. They argued that the Court shouldn't be swayed by public opinion polls or the latest trends in punishment.
Dissenting Doesn't Mean They Were Fans (Just Saying)
While the dissenting justices weren't down with the majority's decision, it's important to note that some of them weren't exactly cheering for the death penalty either. They might have personally opposed it, but they felt it wasn't the Court's place to overstep its bounds.
QuickTip: Stop and think when you learn something new.
So, the dissents in Furman v. Georgia were a mixed bag. Some justices argued for states' rights and historical traditions, while others dissented on a technicality.
Tip: Jot down one takeaway from this post.
 |
FAQ: Death Penalty Dissenter Edition (Quick and Dirty)
How to channel your inner Furman v. Georgia dissenter?
Tip: A slow skim is better than a rushed read.
- Brush up on your history: Know your executions of yore!
- State your rights!: Be prepared to argue for states' control over capital punishment.
- Be skeptical of trends: Don't let "evolving standards" sway you.
Disclaimer: This FAQ is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Also, channeling your inner dissenter at a dinner party might not be the best conversation starter.
 |
