Opinion ID: 2116540
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 45

Heading: 3.2. Arbitrary, Cruel, and Unusual Punishment

Text: Lotter argues that there is an inherent conflict between `consistency' and `individualized sentencing,' brief for appellant 125, which renders the death penalty arbitrary, cruel, and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. This argument is without merit, as this court has consistently held that Nebraska's death penalty statutes do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under either the eighth or fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution or Neb. Const. art. 1, § 9. State v. Anderson and Hochstein, 207 Neb. at 71-72, 296 N.W.2d at 453. See, also, e.g., State v. Moore, 210 Neb. 457, 316 N.W.2d 33 (1982) (declining to address issue based upon plethora of precedent holding that Nebraska death penalty statutes are neither vague nor overbroad).