Death Penalty: Gregg V. Georgia

When someone commits a crime there are many punishments they can receive. House arrest, fines, jail time are some of the most common. But one type of punishment is the most polarizing of them all, the death penalty. Whether the death penalty should be used is often a debated topic between the science of killing someone for their crimes, or the more religious beliefs that it is cruel and unusual to use the death penalty. When considering people who were sentenced to the death penalty like Gregg, Penry, and Baze. As well as what all of them did to deserve the death penalty, it shows that the death penalty should be punishment in criminal cases. Gregg v. Georgia is one of five trials that took place after the Furman v. Georgia trial that reinstated the use of the death penalty. Gregg was charged with robbery and murder on March 31, 1976. After the original ruling Gregg demanded an appeal, and it was taken to the Georgia supreme court. In both cases it was decided that the death penalty should be used, even after the four years of no death penalty because of Furman v. Georgia. Gregg claimed that it would be a “cruel and unusual punishment” that would violate the eighth amendment. In the end it was decided that the death penalty should be used, as what Gregg did was …show more content…
Lynaugh was a trial in which the court ruled that even someone with a mental disability should get the death penalty, which would later be overturned by Atkins v. Virginia. Penry, who had already had a been to prison due to rape, had preceded forcefully rape and murder someone in their home. In court Penry claimed that it was unconstitutional to kill someone with a mental disability. Even though he claimed this, it was decided that what Penry did was deserving of the death penalty. Years after the event Supreme Justice O'Connor claimed that they should have looked into his mental health, but his claim that “the Eighth Amendment does not allow death sentences for retarded