Source: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/constitution-of-the-us-death-penalty-administrative-law-essay.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:37:20+00:00

Document:
Five months later, in “Furman v. Georgia,”  the Supreme Court considered the death penalty a violation of the Eighth and the Fourteenth amendments of the Constitution being “cruel and unusual punishment” and against the concept of “equal protection to all citizens under law.”  In Georgia’s death penalty statute the Court ruled arbitrary sentencing could be negative consequence of the jury’s absolute discretion in imposing the death penalty which would further violate the “cruel and unusual” clause of the the Eighth Amendment.  Subsequently, in 1972, the Supreme Court declared forty death penalty statutes void, thereby commuting and suspending the death sentences of around six hundred death row inmates as existing statutes were no longer valid in the States.  Four years later, in 1976, when hundreds of 1972 death prisoners had been resentenced to life imprisonment, and most state legislatures had enacted new death penalty statutes in an effort to conform to the standards imposed by the Furman ruling, the Court faced the question “whether these statutes were constitutionally permissible.”  Apart from these rulings, many other decisions as discussed in the following chapter played a vital rule in understanding and establishing the constitutionality of the death penalty in the United States.
3.2 Furman v. Georgia, 1972: the death penalty considered unconstitutional.
In the landmark case of “Furman v. Georgia,”  the honourable jury analysed that the outstanding characteristic of the present practice of the death penalty in the United States was infrequent and unordinary punishment for any crime that requires a very clear non-arbitrary infliction and right to fair trial. Furthermore, it was also discussed that procedures in death cases, sanctions an arbitrary selection rather than resulting the execution in extreme cases. The court also held in “McGautha v. California”  that the right of the jury to decide whether to impose the death sentence or not is wholly unguided by standards governing that decision. Therefore, death penalty provisions and procedures are in this way not constructed to guard against the capricious selection of criminals for the implication of the death penalty. From the very beginning, the capital punishment has stirred acute public controversy.  The current rarity and progressive decline of the infliction of death demonstrates that society seriously questions the appropriateness of this unusual provision.
3.3 The death penalty is not per se unconstitutional: Greeg v. Georgia 1976.
3.4 Mandatory death penalties are unconstitutional: Woodson v. North Carolina 1976.
3.6 Constitutional Interpretation and the Death Penalty.
3.7 The death penalty as a cruel and unusual punishment: The constitutional argument.
3.8 Habeas Corpus and Constitutional Controversies.
3.9 International Human Rights Law and U.S. Death Penalty.
In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirmed under Article 3 that “everyone has the right to life” and that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as per Article 5 of the declaration.  Article 2(1) of The European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 provides that every individual has the fundamental right to life. It provides that every individual has the right to live and the death penalty is only an exception for the lawful executions which are further restricted by Protocol 6 and 13 of the Convention. The court has a duty to refrain from unlawful killing, to investigate suspicious deaths and, in certain circumstances, a positive duty to prevent foreseeable loss of life.  The European Court of Human Rights stated in the case of “McCann et al. v. United Kingdom”,  that article 2 of the Convention must be interpreted and applied to make its safeguards practical and effective.
In 2006 the European Commission introduced innovative controls to forbid and restrict the international trade in equipment that could be used for the death penalty, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, through Council Regulation (EC) No. 1236/2005.  On 29 November 2010, the UK Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills made a statement  to the High Court indicating that the UK Department for Business Innovation and Skills would issue an order under section 6 of the Export Control Act 2002 (ECA) controlling the export of sodium thiopental to the US. The Court considering the international human rights, accepted the plea and restricted the export of sodium thiopental to United States, a drug used in lethal injection for the execution of the criminals.  Such restriction can result in suspension of executions in United States safeguarding the right to life of the individuals and the abolition of the death penalty.
"Constitution of the US Death Penalty." LawTeacher.net. 11 2013. All Answers Ltd. 04 2019 <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/constitution-of-the-us-death-penalty-administrative-law-essay.php?vref=1>.
"Constitution of the US Death Penalty." LawTeacher. LawTeacher.net, November 2013. Web. 18 April 2019. <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/constitution-of-the-us-death-penalty-administrative-law-essay.php?vref=1>.
LawTeacher. November 2013. Constitution of the US Death Penalty. [online]. Available from: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/constitution-of-the-us-death-penalty-administrative-law-essay.php?vref=1 [Accessed 18 April 2019].
LawTeacher. Constitution of the US Death Penalty [Internet]. November 2013. [Accessed 18 April 2019]; Available from: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/constitution-of-the-us-death-penalty-administrative-law-essay.php?vref=1.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.