Talk:Furman v. Georgia

U.S. Supreme Court cases High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

related cases[edit]

I don't understand the second sentence of the article:

Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas, pulling of brief sentences for rape, had the same result applied to them as part of a combined decision and ruling.

Is "pulling of" supposed to be "pulling off"? The sentence still doesn't make any sense; it's missing any sort of context or explanation of how these cases relate to Furman v. Georgia. --Trovatore 15:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Furman wasn't, stricly speaking, overruled. In fact, Gregg and the companion cases have to justify themselves by explaining how the respective death penalty schemes either are or are not arbitrary and capricious so as to fall either inside or outside Furman. Maybe we should delete the red section of the infobox?

Social Studies Project[edit]

im doing this case in a social studies class it sucks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.53.169 (talk • contribs) 5 April 2007

List of those spared execution[edit]

I would like to see the article expanded to include a list of those spared execution by Furman. Off the top of my head I know Posteal Lasky ("The Cincinnati Strangler"), Sirhan Sirhan, and Charles Manson were had their death sentences commuted due to this ruling.

I don't have the time or the desire to research it, but I'm tossing out the idea for someone who might. SonPraises (talk) (contributions) 00:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not true for Sirhan or Manson. They were both sentenced to death by the state of California. The California Supreme Court threw out California's death penalty some months prior to Furman. I don't remember the case name. If it can be found, the California case might be an interesting sidelight in this article. --Trovatore 01:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the case you were referring to: California v. Anderson. Even without Sirhan Sirhan or Manson, there has to be a list of notable convicts whose death sentences were commuted by Furman other than the Cincinnati Strangler. SonPraises (talk) (contributions) 06:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this case important to the death penalty discussion[edit]

I've heard this case mentioned several times as a landmark case. What exactly makes it so special as to even cause death penalty cases before and after Furman v. Georgia to be considered differently? I'd like to see a section on this. LinuxMercedes 00:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cannoned[edit]

One of the homeowners was cannoned and killed...

Um, "cannoned"? What sort of weapon was Furman packing, exactly??? 70.20.149.174 (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it was vandalism. 70.20.149.174 (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more expecific about this case —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.217.175 (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism[edit]

The section "question of law" has been directly copied from oyez.com (http://oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_69_5003). The text on both pages is identical. 75.86.188.134 (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concurrences[edit]

According to a Washington Post Magazine feature from 1995, Justice White favored the death penalty. His main reason for concurring was that he believed actual death sentences were carried out too infrequently to be of much value as punishment. BubbleDine (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Furman v. Georgia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090404195512/http://virginialawreview.org:80/articles.php?article=213 to http://www.virginialawreview.org/articles.php?article=213

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garbled quote[edit]

The last line of a blockquote from Potter Stewart's opinion reads: I simply conclude that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments cannot tolerate the infliction of a sentence of death under legal systems that this unique penalty to be so wantonly and so freakishly imposed. There are some missing or garbled words here. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 16:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]