Furman v Georgia (1972)

Death. We hate that word. It's cruel but inevitable. Yet, sometimes the government rules death as a "reasonable punishment". I'm talking about the death penalty. It's rarely used but it's used for sure.

So here's the gist:

Background:

This man Furman was robbing a house but he was caught redhanded. He tried to flee but tripped and unfortunately the gun went off and killed the family member.  He was sentenced to death. he was also a black man, which will tell you something especially when you look at the year, 1972.

Question:

in regards to the 8th and 14th Amendments, is the death sentence a cruel and unusual punishment?

Arguments:

Some say that this can be used unequally against other races, namely black people, and they said that simply designating the "severity" of the case led to lots of bias.

Others say that it's perfectly fine if the person has committed some horrible crime like killed dozens of people. These people are a waste to society and should not be allowed to live. Locking them up for life doesn't' do really good because it's just wasting taxpayer dollars.

Conclusion:

Basically, its technically cruel, but it is ever used it must not be used in any discriminatory manner.

Implications:

So now we see fewer death sentences just because of all of the connotations of it. People are opting for life sentences with no parole or other methods.