Summary Conclusion:
Suppose Georgia would review its statute and examine the Furman v. Georgia constitutional issues critically. In that case, chances are that there is a promise of reinstatement of the death penalty in the state. In Furman, the Supreme Court, overturning the old death penalty statutes because of arbitrariness and capriciousness, sets forth the possibility that a careful and skillfully framed statute would withstand constitutionality review. The state would provide that the statute is constitutional where the state answers the specific concerns raised by Justices White and Stewart, such as guided discretion and the broader objection to the arbitrary character of capital punishment. Defining strict standards, limiting discretion, and reducing arbitrary elements would make it easier for such justices to justify the statute as constitutional and strengthen the chances of its passing as constitutional by the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, important to take a strategic and careful approach to statute amendment for the legal reintroduction of the death sentence in Georgia.
Issue:
The question at issue is whether Georgia can amend its death penalty statute so it meets Constitutional muster in the aftermath of “Furman v. Georgia?” by the Supreme Court.
Rule:
The ideal Court ruled in “Furman v. Georgia” that the death penalty statutes that were in the vicinity of Georgia and Texas were unconstitutional due to issues with their implementation being arbitrary and capricious. The Court did not offer a single justification. However, a majority, which included Justices White and Stewart, voiced disapproval of the death penalty’s arbitrary use at the time and declared it to be an infringement of the “Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.”
Application:
Relevant Facts:
In the case of three individuals sentenced to death as presented by “Furman v. Georgia,” such a move led to a de facto moratorium on capital punishment in the US. In the Court’s view, the punishment was meted out at random and without any particular standard for its application. For example, each of the justices who were in the majority, including Justices White and Stewart, raised concerns with regard to the arbitrariness in the application of the death penalty (Newsome, 2017). Although they have yet to meet on the same basis of reason, their frustration with the existing rule provides room for a thoughtfully modified statute.
Analysis:
In attending to this matter, much attention has to be leveled toward the concerns articulated by Justices White and Stewart in the Furman case for the constitutionality test to pass. In his concurrence, Justice White emphasized guided discretion and a more structured process of death punishment. Such a statute should provide clear standards, restrict the area of discretion and ensure consistency in decision making and would probably respond to what J. White suggested.
In his concurrence, Justice Steward gave a broader objection to the arbitrariness of capital punishment. The revised statute should strive to lessen arbitrary aspects of the execution of punishment, like race and socio-economic status (Newsome, 2017). Adhering to fairness and equal treatment and moving away from arbitrariness will be in sync with Justice Stewart’s ideology.
Because of their expressed reservations, it appears that Justices White and Stewart would be the most open to a carefully formulated new law. By engaging the opinions expressed by Furman, addressing the issues they raised would greatly strengthen the constitutionally of the death penalty for Georgia.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Georgia would successfully enact a revised death penalty statute that adopts structured discretion and responds to the concerns raised by Justices White and Stewart that would likely be deemed constitutional. The statute can be brought into unity with the opinions of these justices, thus enabling the state to reinstate the death penalty under the Supreme Court’s instructions in Furman vs. Georgia.
Reference
Newsome, W. (2017). A Promise Unfulfilled: Challenges To Georgia’s Death Penalty Statute Post-Furman. Georgia State University Law Review, 33(3), 839. https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol33/iss3/7/
Part II: Constitutional Considerations. (n.d.).
write