Historical U.S. Circumstances WHICH HAVE Ruled on the Unconstitutionality of the Loss of life Penalty
The courts positions of the loss of life penalty has changed through the years. For centuries societies have used loss of life as the best penalty for crime. In the 1960's, the courtroom ruled against the loss of life penalty as a "cruel and unusual punishment", that was forbidden by the eighth amendment of the Constitution. By the 1990's the death penalty was again in wide employ supported by the courtroom and Congress, which continually extended by legislation the crimes that death would be a satisfactory penalty.
Supreme Court cases which have felt the loss of life penalty was unconstitutional include Roberts vs. Louisiana and Furman vs. Georgia. Roberts vs. Louisiana, (1976) was a circumstance that tried out Robert, who robbed a retailer in Louisiana. During the robbery, Robert shot and killed an working officer. He was convicted of first level murder and was sentenced to loss of life. He appealed and his circumstance visited the Supreme Courtroom. The Supreme Court's decision was that it had been unconstitutional for everybody convicted of murder to become sentenced to loss of life.
The most important circumstance that ruled the loss of life penalty unconstitutional is usually Furman vs. Georgia, 1972. The U.S. Supreme Courtroom, in most five to four, ruled that the loss of life penalty was "cruel and uncommon" and hence violated the eighth amendment. Justice Brennen imagined the death penalty was "cruel and uncommon in all conditions, a denial of the executed person's humanity, and uniquely degrading to human being dignity" (The American Heritage Background of the Expenses of Rights, p. 93.).
Historically speaking when the Eighth Amendment was written