Furman v. Georgia

Media Items
Furman v. Georgia - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Furman v. Georgia - Oral Argument (No. 69-5030)
Get Adobe Flash Player
Furman v. Georgia - Oral Argument (No. 69-5031)
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Dorothy T. Beasley (Argued the cause for respondent)
Anthony G. Amsterdam (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
69-5003
Petitioner: 
Furman
Respondent: 
Georgia
Consolidation: 
Jackson v. Georgia, No. 69-5030
Branch v. Texas, No. 69-5031
Decided By: 
Burger Court (1972-1975)
Opinion: 
408 U.S. 238 (1972)
Categories: 
separation of powers, eighth amendment, cruel and unusual punishment, capital punishment, privileges and immunities, fourteenth amendment, criminal
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Furman v. Georgia , 408 U.S. 238 (1972)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_69_5003)
Facts of the Case: 

Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He attempted to flee, and in doing so tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went off and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death (Two other death penalty cases were decided along with Furman: Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas. These cases concern the constitutionality of the death sentence for rape and murder convictions, respectively).

Question: 

Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion: 

Yes. The Court's one-page per curiam opinion held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. In over two hundred pages of concurrence and dissents, the justices articulated their views on this controversial subject. Only Justices Brennan and Marshall believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional in all instances. Other concurrences focused on the arbitrary nature with which death sentences have been imposed, often indicating a racial bias against black defendants. The Court's decision forced states and the national legislature to rethink their statutes for capital offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner.

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for Furman, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 8: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Sort by Ideology

Wrote a dissent, joined Powell's dissent, joined Rehnquist's dissent
Burger
Wrote a regular concurrence
Douglas
Wrote a regular concurrence
Brennan
Wrote a regular concurrence
Stewart
Wrote a regular concurrence
White
Wrote a regular concurrence
Marshall
Wrote a dissent, joined multiple dissents
Blackmun
Wrote a dissent, joined Burger's dissent, joined Rehnquist's dissent
Powell
Wrote a dissent, joined Burger's dissent, joined Powell's dissent
Rehnquist

Per Curiam with Argument

Timeplots Affiliate

Timeplots.com: A Visual History of the Supreme Court