Gregg Vs. Georgia

Argued March 31, 1976

Decided July 2, 1976

Overview: Troy Gregg was picked up on November 21, 1973, as a hitchhiker in Florida by Fred Simmons and Bob Moore. Later, they picked up another hitchhiker, Dennis Weaver, who was let out in Atlanta. The next day, both Simmons and Moore were found robbed and dead and their car missing. After a search, police found Gregg in North Carolina with the stolen car and the pistol used to attack both men. The crime occurred in Georgia and that is why the hearing was held in Georgia.

The Question: Gregg was guilty, no question. He pleaded guilty, claiming that the gun found on his person during the arrest was indeed the same gun he used to rob and murder. After a Georgia court found Gregg guilty, they also decided that it was a capital offense, and thus the death penalty was needed. The Georgia Supreme Court held this as constitutional. What made the case complicated was that one year prior, the court case of Furman vs. Georgia (1972) had occurred which made the death penalty close to unconstitutional on the basis of it being a form of cruel and unusual punishment (the Furman case is long and complicated, regarding individual states and their individual constitutions and how they are worded. This is a generalization as to the outcome of that decision). Gregg was making the argument that sentencing him to death was a form of cruel and unusual punishment that infringed on his constitutional rights (8^th amendment to the constitution).

Path/The Court: The trial started in a regular Georgia court. This court had two phases, a guilt stage and a sentencing stage. The guilt stage had found Gregg guilty of two acts of armed robbery and two acts of murder. In the sentencing stage, the trial judge told the jury that they had the option of the death sentence or a life in prison sentence. After delegation, the jury found that a death sentence was necessary. Gregg then appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court, which found the death penalty constitutional. Finally he appealed to the national Supreme Court. Once there he faced:

Warren Burger – Chief justice, strict constructionist mindset of the constitution. This is why Nixon appointed him, but he proved to be much more liberal than most thought he would be.

William J. Brennan Jr. – Very liberal

Potter Stewart – Centrist

Harry Blackmun – Conservative. Him and Burger were called the Minnesota Twins because of their similarities on voting.

Byron White­ – More Conservative than some would have liked but in the end took every case individually and was characterized as not having a broad, sweeping political philosophy.

Lewis F. Powell Jr. – Moderate, swing vote justice.

William Rehnquist – Conservative.

Thurgood Marshall – Liberal. Known for protection of individual’s rights

John Paul Stevens – Conservative.

Outcome: The majority, including chief Justice Burger concluded that the punishment of death for the crime of murder does not, under all circumstances, violate the eighth amendment. Though a legislature may not impose an excessive penalty, they do not have to seek the least severe punishment when faced with a crime. The framers of the constitution accepted the usage of the death penalty. Justices Blackmun, Brennan and Marshall, in the minority, focused on the claim that civilization has gotten past the point where we need the death penalty. We are an advanced species at this point and the death penalty simply is not necessary to rid the “evils” society. The death penalty became legal by constitutional law and the implementation is simply that people can die for a crime they commit now. And that crime does not just have to be a murder crime either, it is whatever the court deems fit (as long as it isn’t cruel or unusual).

Evaluation: I agree in that sometimes the death penalty is necessary when the most heinous of offenses are committed. However, I agree completely with the ruling found in Furman Vs. Georgia that we as a civilization should start to move away form the death penalty. This is not the Middle Ages, and there should be ways to fix societies ills rather than killing them. Perhaps go to the source of the aggression and solve future problems before they occur. As of right now, the death penalty is needed for certain crimes to show society that, as a nation, we will not tolerate certain offenses. However, I do not believe that the death penalty will always be needed.