Civil Liberties AP Government Unit 9 Civil Liberties

  • Slides: 60
Download presentation
Civil Liberties AP Government Unit 9

Civil Liberties AP Government Unit 9

Civil Liberties • Civil liberties is the name given to freedoms that protect the

Civil Liberties • Civil liberties is the name given to freedoms that protect the individual from government. • Civil liberties set limits for government so that it would not abuse its power and interfere with the lives of its citizens. • The term civil rights refers to rights, freedoms and liberties and that should be given to people no matter their race, ethnicity, lifestyles, or beliefs • They also can refer to the nonpolitical rights of a citizen or person

Civil Liberties • Many of the world's democracies, such as the United States and

Civil Liberties • Many of the world's democracies, such as the United States and Canada, have bills of rights or similar constitutional documents that enumerate and seek to guarantee civil liberties. • Basic civil liberties include the: – – – Freedom of assembly Freedom of religion Freedom of speech Due process The right to a fair trial and to privacy.

The 1 st Amendment • Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

The 1 st Amendment • Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

1 st Amendment • Freedom of Religion • The Establishment Clause – There shall

1 st Amendment • Freedom of Religion • The Establishment Clause – There shall be no “established state religion” • The Free Exercise Clause – Freedom to worship as you please • How can these clauses be reconciled? • It has proven to be difficult to satisfy everyone!

1 st Amendment • Freedom of Religion Cases – Reynolds v United States 1878

1 st Amendment • Freedom of Religion Cases – Reynolds v United States 1878 • Polygamy case concerning Mormon man who married 2 women. • Is this constitutional because of the Free Exercise Clause? • No! – Society is built upon the civil contract of marriage, the government can permissibly pass laws regulating marriage.

1 st Amendment • Freedom of Religion Cases – West Virginia Board of Ed

1 st Amendment • Freedom of Religion Cases – West Virginia Board of Ed v Barnette 1943 • Free Exercise Clause Case • Jehovah’s Witness case concerning the requirement to pledge to the American flag • Did the compulsory flag-salute for public schoolchildren violate the First Amendment? • Yes, citing the Free Exercise Clause – The students did NOT have to leave the room or pledge to the flag

1 st Amendment • Freedom of Religion Cases – Engel v Vitale 1962 •

1 st Amendment • Freedom of Religion Cases – Engel v Vitale 1962 • Required nondenominational school prayer in New York: – “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country. " • Is this constitutional? • NO! – By providing the prayer, New York had officially approved religion; this was found to violate the 1 st Amendment’s Establishment Clause – Neither the prayer's nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saved it from unconstitutionality.

1 st Amendment • Freedom of Religion Cases – Abington School District v Schempp

1 st Amendment • Freedom of Religion Cases – Abington School District v Schempp 1963 • At the beginning of the school day, students who attended public schools in the state of Pennsylvania were required to read at least ten verses from the Bible. After completing these readings, school authorities required all Abington Township students to recite the Lord's Prayer. • The Court ruled that these required activities encroached on both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment since the readings and recitations were essentially religious ceremonies and were "intended by the State to be so. "

1 st Amendment • Freedom of Religion Case • Lemon v Kurtzman 1971 •

1 st Amendment • Freedom of Religion Case • Lemon v Kurtzman 1971 • The case involved controversies over laws in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. – In Pennsylvania, a statute provided financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to nonpublic schools. – The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in nonpublic elementary schools. Each statute made aid available to "church-related educational institutions. "

Importance • The Court ruled that public money for religious schools is not constitutional

Importance • The Court ruled that public money for religious schools is not constitutional • Created “The Lemon Test”- A 3 Prong Test – First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose – Second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion – Finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion”

1 st Amendment • Freedom of Religion Cases – Wisconsin v Yoder 1971 •

1 st Amendment • Freedom of Religion Cases – Wisconsin v Yoder 1971 • Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, both members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public schools until age 16. – The three parents refused to send their children to such schools after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs. • Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons?

1 st Amendment • Freedom of Religion Cases – Yes! – In a unanimous

1 st Amendment • Freedom of Religion Cases – Yes! – In a unanimous decision, the Court held that individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade.

1 st Amendment • Freedom of Religion Cases – Employment Div. , Dept. of

1 st Amendment • Freedom of Religion Cases – Employment Div. , Dept. of Human Resources Oregon v Smith 1990 • Free Exercise Clause Case • Two Native Americans who worked as counselors for a private drug rehabilitation organization, ingested peyote -- a powerful hallucinogen -- as part of their religious ceremonies as members of the Native American Church. • As a result of this conduct, the rehabilitation organization fired the counselors who sued claiming that the Free Exercise Clause protected their religion.

1 st Amendment • Decision and Importance – The Court disagreed and ruled that

1 st Amendment • Decision and Importance – The Court disagreed and ruled that an individual's religious beliefs do NOT excuse him/her from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. • Taxes, military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws…

1 st Amendment • Freedom of Religion Cases – Church of the Lukumi Babalu

1 st Amendment • Freedom of Religion Cases – Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, 1993 • The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye practiced the Afro. Caribbean-based religion of Santeria. – Santeria used animal sacrifice as a form of worship in which an animal's carotid arteries would be cut and, except during healing and death rights, the animal would be eaten. • The city of Hialeah passed an ordinance prohibiting the possession of animals for sacrifice or slaughter soon after the church opened. • The Church challenged it claiming the Free Exercise Clause allowed the practice

Decision and Importance • The Court ruled for the church! • The core failure

Decision and Importance • The Court ruled for the church! • The core failure of the ordinances were that they applied exclusively to the church and singled out the activities of the Santeria faith and suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve their stated ends. – Only conduct tied to religious belief was burdened. • The ordinances targeted religious behavior, therefore they failed to survive the rigors of strict scrutiny.

st 1 Amendment • Freedom of Speech Cases – Schenck v US 1919 –

st 1 Amendment • Freedom of Speech Cases – Schenck v US 1919 – During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees that suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system. • The circulars urged "Do not submit to intimidation" but advised only peaceful action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. – Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. – Were his words protected by the speech clause of the First Amendment?

st 1 Amendment • NO! – During wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be

st 1 Amendment • NO! – During wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished. – "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. "

st 1 Amendment Freedom of Speech Limits • Abrams v US 1919 – The

st 1 Amendment Freedom of Speech Limits • Abrams v US 1919 – The defendants threw leaflets they printed and threw from windows of a building. • One leaflet signed "revolutionists" denounced the sending of American troops to Russia. • The second leaflet denounced the war and US efforts to impede the Russian Revolution. – The defendants were charged and convicted for inciting resistance to the war effort and for urging curtailment of production of essential war material – They were sentenced to 20 years in prison and charged with violations of 1917 Espionage Act – Question of Law: • Do the amendments to the Espionage Act or the application of those amendments in this case violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

st 1 Amendment • Freedom of Speech Limits – Decision and Importance • Are

st 1 Amendment • Freedom of Speech Limits – Decision and Importance • Are they inciting violence in their speech? – If so speech is NOT protected • In the majority opinion, the leaflets are an appeal to violent revolution, a call for a general strike, and an attempt to curtail production of munitions. – The leaflets had a tendency to encourage war resistance and to curtail war production – Wartime is different than peacetime • Is there … “a clear and [present] danger”?

1 st and 14 th Amendment **Incorporation** • Gitlow v NY 1925 – Overturned

1 st and 14 th Amendment **Incorporation** • Gitlow v NY 1925 – Overturned idea in Barron v Baltimore that the Bill of Rights can only be applied to the federal government and incorporated these rights into the 14 th amendment – States were now prohibited from “impairing” citizen’s personal freedoms and Constitutional rights not just the federal government • Brought Bill of Rights under the protection of the 14 th Amendment • Guaranteed due process clause of 14 th Amendment

Incorporated or Not Incorporated? The Bill of Rights is Selectively Incorporated • 1 st

Incorporated or Not Incorporated? The Bill of Rights is Selectively Incorporated • 1 st Amendment: Fully incorporated. • 2 nd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision on incorporation since 1876 (when it was rejected). – Heller concerning the District of Columbia did not incorporate • 3 rd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision; 2 nd Circuit found to be incorporated. • 4 th Amendment: Fully incorporated. • 5 th Amendment: Incorporated except for clause guaranteeing criminal prosecution only on a grand jury indictment. • 6 th Amendment: Fully incorporated. • 7 th Amendment: Not incorporated. • 8 th Amendment: Incorporated with respect to the protection against "cruel and unusual punishments, " but no specific Supreme Court ruling on the incorporation of the "excessive fines" and "excessive bail" protections.

1 st Amendment Freedom of Expression • Freedom of Expression Cases – Tinker v

1 st Amendment Freedom of Expression • Freedom of Expression Cases – Tinker v Des Moines 1969 – Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections? • The wearing of black arm bands in schools to protest the Vietnam War were ruled to be a constitutional expression of free speech • Justice Brennan noted that students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate"

Morse v. Frederick, 2007 Joseph Frederick • • • 1) Does the First Amendment

Morse v. Frederick, 2007 Joseph Frederick • • • 1) Does the First Amendment allow public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages promoting the use of illegal drugs at schoolsupervised events? YES 2) Does a school official have immunity from a damages lawsuit under when, in accordance with school policy, she disciplines a student for displaying a banner with a drug reference at a school-supervised event? MAYBE? ? ?

1 st Amendment Freedom of Expression • Freedom of Expression Cases – Island Trees

1 st Amendment Freedom of Expression • Freedom of Expression Cases – Island Trees School District v Pico 1982 – Does the First Amendment impose any limitations upon the discretion of a local school board to remove library books from the High School and Junior High School? • Banned book list was NOT constitutional

1 st Amendment Freedom of Expression • Freedom of Expression Cases – Brandenburg v

1 st Amendment Freedom of Expression • Freedom of Expression Cases – Brandenburg v Ohio 1969 • Can KKK make a hate-speech in Ohio? – Incorporation of speech rights • Yes. The KKK speech was constitutional as long as violence was NOT incited (clear and present danger test) – Texas v Johnson 1989 • A Texas law that banned flag burning was challenged • The Court ruled that flag burning as a form of protest was constitutional • Symbolic speech

1 st Amendment Obscenity Cases • Are there limits to free speech? – Roth

1 st Amendment Obscenity Cases • Are there limits to free speech? – Roth v United States 1957 • Facts of the Case – Roth operated a book-selling business in New York and was convicted of mailing obscene circulars and an obscene book in violation of a federal obscenity statute. • Importance – The Court held that obscenity was not "within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press. " – The Court noted that the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance or form of expression, such as materials that were: • “Utterly without redeeming social importance. "

1 st Amendment Obscenity Cases • However in 1972, a new Court considered the

1 st Amendment Obscenity Cases • However in 1972, a new Court considered the obscenity issue again in Miller v California – Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of "adult" material, was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. – Is the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee?

1 st Amendment Obscenity Cases • Ruling and Importance – In a 5 -to-4

1 st Amendment Obscenity Cases • Ruling and Importance – In a 5 -to-4 decision, the Court held that obscene materials did not enjoy First Amendment protection. – The Court modified the test for obscenity established in Roth v. United States • The Court rejected the "utterly without redeeming social value" ruling from Roth. – The new standard became: • “Does it have artistic, literary, political, scientific value or social importance? ” • Also "community standards" must be taken in to account

1 st Amendment Freedom of Press • Near v Minnesota, 1930 – Jay Near

1 st Amendment Freedom of Press • Near v Minnesota, 1930 – Jay Near published a scandal sheet in Minneapolis, in which he attacked local officials, charging that they were implicated with gangsters – Minnesota officials stopped Near from publishing his newspaper under a state law that allowed such action against periodicals. – The law provided that any person publishing a "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" newspaper was guilty of a nuisance, and could be stopped from further committing or maintaining the nuisance. – The Court sided with Near claiming “No prior restraint” of press

1 st Amendment Freedom of Press • Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier, 1988 • The Spectrum,

1 st Amendment Freedom of Press • Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier, 1988 • The Spectrum, the school-sponsored newspaper of Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited by students. The school principal found two of the articles in the issue to be inappropriate, and ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be withheld from publication. – Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood East students brought the case to court. • Did the principal's deletion of the articles violate the students' rights under the First Amendment?

1 st Amendment Freedom of Press • No! – In a 5 -to-3 decision,

1 st Amendment Freedom of Press • No! – In a 5 -to-3 decision, the Court held that the First Amendment did not require schools to affirmatively promote particular types of student speech. – School newspapers may be regulated by school officials

1 st Amendment Freedom of Press • New York Times v Sullivan, 1964 –

1 st Amendment Freedom of Press • New York Times v Sullivan, 1964 – Sullivan claimed he had been harmed by an ad – The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice – New York Times v US , 1971 • Vietnam war/President Nixon case • Pentagon Papers could be published

1 st Amendment Freedom of Press • Other Important Laws and Acts dealing with

1 st Amendment Freedom of Press • Other Important Laws and Acts dealing with the Freedom of the Press – Sunshine Laws – Freedom of Information Act

st 1 Amendment • Right to Privacy Cases – Griswold v Connecticut 1965 –

st 1 Amendment • Right to Privacy Cases – Griswold v Connecticut 1965 – Facts • Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counseling for purposes of preventing conception. – Conclusion • Birth control for married couples was constitutional • The First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations – Roe v Wade 1973 • Abortion was constitutional- right to privacy

st 1 Amendment • Right to Privacy Cases – Webster v Reproductive Health Services,

st 1 Amendment • Right to Privacy Cases – Webster v Reproductive Health Services, 1989 • Facts-Abortion clinics could limit abortions to before 20 weeks in Missouri • Conclusion-Affirmation of Roe but a roll back of Roe and privacy rights – Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992 • Facts-Pennsylvania case in which a 24 hour waiting period, and a law requiring parental permission were upheld • Conclusion-An affirmation of Roe but another rollback of Roe

2 nd Amendment • A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of

2 nd Amendment • A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. • Important Case – District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

4 th Amendment • The right of the people to be secure in their

4 th Amendment • The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

4 th Amendment • “Mapp v Ohio 1961 – Dolree Mapp was convicted of

4 th Amendment • “Mapp v Ohio 1961 – Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression. • Search and seizure” case • Search of home by police found illegal materials without warrant – Is this constitutional?

4 th Amendment • “Search and Seizure” Cases – No! The Court ruled for

4 th Amendment • “Search and Seizure” Cases – No! The Court ruled for Mrs. Mapp – The Exclusionary Rule was established – Without warrant, items could not be used against Mapp – This is known as the “Fruit of a poisonous tree” – FYI, if police are in hot pursuit of criminals they can be given the “good faith exception” in most cases

4 th Amendment • Katz v US, 1968 – Katz ran an illegal gambling

4 th Amendment • Katz v US, 1968 – Katz ran an illegal gambling operation – Acting on a suspicion that Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states, federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth used by Katz – Was this wiretapping constitutional? – No! • Wiretaps need a court order or search warrant • 4 th Amendment protects people not

4 th Amendment • Safford Unified School District v. Redding (2009) • Savana Redding,

4 th Amendment • Safford Unified School District v. Redding (2009) • Savana Redding, an eighth grader at Safford Middle School, was strip-searched by school officials on the basis of a tip that she might have ibuprofen on her person in violation of school policy. • She alleged her Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated.

4 th Amendment • Question of Law – Question 1: Does the Fourth Amendment

4 th Amendment • Question of Law – Question 1: Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit school officials from strip searching students suspected of possessing drugs in violation of school policy? – Question 2: Are school officials individually liable for damages in a lawsuit filed under 42 U. S. C Section 1983? • Conclusion – Question 1: Sometimes, but in this case no! – Question 2: No!

5 th Amendment • No person shall be held to answer for a capital,

5 th Amendment • No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Due Process Rights found in 5 th Amendment • Substantive due process rights are

Due Process Rights found in 5 th Amendment • Substantive due process rights are the rights that you have when you wake up in the morning as an American citizen – Amendment 1: freedom of speech, religion, expression, etc. – Also, Amendments 2 and 3. • Procedural due process rights are the rights that you have when you have entered the legal system - freedom from unreasonable search, right to an attorney, jury trial, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment etc. – Also refers to the "process liberties" the government must adhere to when accusing an American of committing a crime

Due Process Rights Examples of Procedural Due Process Rights • Speedy trial • Legal

Due Process Rights Examples of Procedural Due Process Rights • Speedy trial • Legal counsel assistance • Police strip searches • Police have to have a warrant Examples of Substantive Due Process Rights • Minimum wage law • Possession of marijuana for medical purposes • Burning the flag

5 th Amendment Eminent Domain Kelo v City of New London, CT, 2005 •

5 th Amendment Eminent Domain Kelo v City of New London, CT, 2005 • Facts of the Case • New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. • The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. • The property owners argued the city violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which guaranteed the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation. – Specifically the property owners argued taking private property to sell to private developers was not public use. • Question • Does a city violate the Fifth Amendment's takings clause if the city takes private property and sells it for private development, with the hopes the development will help the city's bad economy?

Importance of Kelo • Conclusion • No. In a 5 -4 opinion delivered by

Importance of Kelo • Conclusion • No. In a 5 -4 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the majority held that the city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a "public use" within the meaning of the takings clause. • The city was not taking the land simply to benefit a certain group of private individuals, but was following an economic development plan. – The takings here qualified as "public use" despite the fact that the land was not going to be used by the public. • The Fifth Amendment did not require "literal" public use, the majority said, but the "broader and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public purpose. '"

6 th Amendment • “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right

6 th Amendment • “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. ”

5 th and 6 th Amendments Fair Trial/Due Process Case • Sheppard v Maxwell

5 th and 6 th Amendments Fair Trial/Due Process Case • Sheppard v Maxwell (1966) – After suffering a trial court conviction of seconddegree murder for the bludgeoning death of his pregnant wife, Samuel Sheppard challenged the verdict as the product of an unfair trial. • The case received extensive coverage by the press, with headlines such as "Why isn't Sam Sheppard in jail? " and "Getting away with murder" covering the front pages of newspapers. – Sheppard alleged that the trial judge failed to protect him from the massive, widespread, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution. • Was there too much pre-trial publicity for Sheppard to receive a fair trial? .

5 th and 6 th Amendments Fair Trial/Due Process Case • Yes! • In

5 th and 6 th Amendments Fair Trial/Due Process Case • Yes! • In an 8 -to-1 decision the Court found that Sheppard did not receive a fair trial. • Noting that although freedom of expression should be given great latitude, the Court held that it must not be so broad as to divert the trial away from its primary purpose: adjudicating both criminal and civil matters in an objective, calm, and solemn courtroom setting. • FYI…At his second trial, 12 years after the first, Sheppard was acquitted.

5 th and 6 th Amendments • Attorney Rights/Due Process Cases – Gideon v

5 th and 6 th Amendments • Attorney Rights/Due Process Cases – Gideon v Wainwright 1963 • Right to an attorney – Escobedo v Illinois 1964 • Right to speak to an attorney – Miranda v Arizona 1966 • Miranda rights must be read

8 th Amendment • Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,

8 th Amendment • Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

8 th Amendment • Is the death penalty “cruel and unusual punishment”? • Furman

8 th Amendment • Is the death penalty “cruel and unusual punishment”? • Furman v Georgia, 1972 • Gregg v Georgia, 1976

Furman v Georgia, 1972 • Facts of the Case • Furman was burglarizing a

Furman v Georgia, 1972 • 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. • 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?

Importance • Conclusion • Yes. The imposition of the death penalty in this cases

Importance • Conclusion • Yes. The imposition of the death penalty in this cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. • 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.

Gregg v Georgia, 1976 • Facts of the Case • A jury found Gregg

Gregg v Georgia, 1976 • Facts of the Case • A jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery and murder and sentenced him to death. – On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence except as to its imposition for the robbery conviction. • Gregg challenged his remaining death sentence for murder, claiming that his capital sentence was a "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. • Question • Is the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment?

Gregg v Georgia • Conclusion • No. In a 7 -to-2 decision, the Court

Gregg v Georgia • Conclusion • No. In a 7 -to-2 decision, the Court held that a punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances. • In extreme criminal cases, such as when a defendant has been convicted of deliberately killing another, the careful and judicious use of the death penalty may be appropriate if carefully employed. – Moreover, the Court was not prepared to overrule the Georgia legislature's finding that capital punishment serves as a useful deterrent to future capital crimes and an appropriate means of social retribution against its most serious offenders.

 • Please read Chapter 5 and study your case file and notes!!!

• Please read Chapter 5 and study your case file and notes!!!