Тёмный

Carol Steiker on Furman v. Georgia (Part I) 

Harvard Law School
Подписаться 266 тыс.
Просмотров 9 тыс.
50% 1

In this installment of “Cases in Brief,” Harvard Law Professor Carol Steiker ’86, an expert on capital punishment and the U.S. Supreme Court, discusses Furman v. Georgia, a 1972 landmark Supreme Court decision that declared the death penalty unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.
The ruling effectively nullified all existing death sentences and halted all executions for a four-year period.
This video, part one of two, gives some of the backstory leading up to the Furman decision. In the 1960s, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund organized a nationwide campaign to challenge the constitutionality of the death penalty in hundreds of cases. The movement effectively prevented states and the federal government from implementing the death penalty during the six years leading up to Furman. Ultimately, no executions took place in the United States from 1966-1976, the longest period in U.S. history.
In part two, Steiker will discuss the process by which the Court made its ruling, a rare case in which all nine justices issued separate opinions, as well as the decision’s immediate and long-term impacts.
Carol Steiker is the Henry J. Friendly Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Her most recent books, written and edited in collaboration with her brother Jordan Steiker ’88, professor and co-director of the Capital Punishment Center at the University of Texas Austin School of Law, include “Comparative Capital Punishment,” and “Courting Death: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment.”

Опубликовано:

 

10 сен 2024

Поделиться:

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист
Посмотреть позже
Комментарии : 9   
@peter1423ka
@peter1423ka 9 месяцев назад
Death penalty (DP) is a ritualized form of murder. It is the excessive revenge of the system against the ultimate offender. Actually it is not the "death" penalty, it is the "fear of death" penalty. In other words: It is mere torture. European law has long established this point of view, thus the DP has been abolished in the most European countries (Belarus as the only exception) past the recent decades. Just because it is not compatible with our views of human dignity and the prohibition of any kind of torture in the legal process.
@cjcorliss
@cjcorliss 2 года назад
I wanted to listen to this but the piano+type on the screen made it impossible to understand. Accessibility is the majority of understanding
@fabianlawstudies9497
@fabianlawstudies9497 2 года назад
Capital punishment, which is also known as the death penalty, is not the appropriate legalize practice for every crime. No doubt, capital punishment is a [executive tool] that has been misused for all the wrong reasons, some folks may argue that capital punishment is appropriate for offenders who intentionally and wanted to commit heinous crimes that would remind a reasonable person of a bloody heart wrenching horror movie. Whether some folks do support capital punishment for aggravated murder, and depending on the circumstances of the material factors of the [ nature ] of the heinous crimes committed, some folks consider it to be cruel and unusual punishment especially if the executive tool is being misused to punishment offenders who have only committed lesser offenses that are not aggravated murder. But the motive for capital punishment was because of race and ethnicity. History has shown society is not a one perspective fits all for whether or not if capital punishment is appropriate at all; if not then subjected to different types of moratoriums. For instance, there are approximately 27 states in the United States where the practice is legalized, America Samoa by the federal government, and eve the military even though it is abolished in 23 states. Be that as it may, 20 states have the ability to use the executive tool, and the other 7 states and the federal government are subjected to different types of ban. Not only is the misuse of the capital punishment practice is part of the reasons for the practice to have gradually declined in the United States in recent decades which is why in a number of states the use of the executive tool is abolished. Capital punishment has been held to be unconstitutional because the motive for the deciding factors was not always for aggravated murder, but the choice of practice was applied in a manner that disproportionately harm minorities and the poor, and applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. The case Furman v. Georgia (1972) is an example for a supportive point to whether or not if capital punishment is right and appropriate. “Furman v. Georgia (1972) is a U.S. Supreme Court case that revolves around the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment in death penalty cases. In this case, petitioner Furman was convicted of murder in Georgia, petitioner Jackson was convicted of rape in Georgia, and petitioner Branch was convicted of rape in Texas. All three were sentenced to death in their respective cases.” And on June 29, 1972, the court held in three cases that the capital punishment practice is unconstitutional. The decision ultimately forced some surrounding states and the national legislature to rethink their statutes for capital offenses to assure that the capital punishment would not be applied in a arbitrary manner, nor administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner which would disproportionately harm minorities and the poor. Thanks for sharing! 👍🏾
@randomspiel
@randomspiel 2 года назад
Are.. y'all gonna do Gregg v Georgia soon?
@kirkyi6412
@kirkyi6412 2 года назад
excuse me . . sentencing guideline is in constitution? Semicolon . . 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; Semicolon . . just as in naturalization; any standard; so long as one standard; is due process; as such constitution does not say sentencing guideline is constitutional; as is 'secure in their persons and effects' allow secure life; but in fifth did not say "effects" were excluded; as such . . it can be concluded sentencing guideline is unconstitutional if issue raised were 'must'; or mandate;
@avezkhanniyozov2197
@avezkhanniyozov2197 2 года назад
🤩🤩 I love it
@poojarawatsvlog1776
@poojarawatsvlog1776 2 года назад
I’m the first viewer ❤️
@hubrisnaut
@hubrisnaut 2 года назад
Harvard Law, apologizing for psychopaths, and proud of it
@tamtam9179
@tamtam9179 2 года назад
Of course Racist Ga.
Далее
Carol Steiker on Furman v. Georgia (Part 2)
7:58
Просмотров 6 тыс.
Richard Lazarus on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
6:53
гендер пати🩷🩵
00:21
Просмотров 126 тыс.
"How to Read a Case" with UVA Law Professor Anne Coughlin
1:09:07
Limited government and the Constitution
19:36
Просмотров 19 тыс.
Tour the Harvard Law School Library
8:16
Просмотров 216 тыс.
Ames Moot Court Competition 2021
1:29:50
Просмотров 145 тыс.
Typewriters make comeback during pandemic
2:37
Просмотров 11 тыс.
гендер пати🩷🩵
00:21
Просмотров 126 тыс.