text:
Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cell phone use is regulated by local ordinance during certain hours in Southside Place, Texas, in Greater Houston
Various laws in the United States regulate the use of mobile phones and other electronics by motorists. Different states take different approaches. Some laws affect only novice drivers or commercial drivers, while some laws affect all drivers. Some laws target handheld devices only, while other laws affect both handheld and handsfree devices.
Contents
[hide]
1 Regulatory laws
2 Laws by state
3 Preemption Laws
4 Cost of distracted driving
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading
Regulatory laws[edit]
The laws regulating driving (or distracted driving) may be subject to primary enforcement or secondary enforcement by state, county or local authorities.[1] All State-level cell phone use laws in the United States are of the primary enforcement type—meaning an officer may cite a driver for using a hand-held cell phone without any other traffic offense having taken place—except in some cases involving newer (or "novice"), drivers.[2] In the case of secondary enforcement, a police officer may only stop or cite a driver for a cell phone use violation if the driver has committed another primary violation (such as speeding, failure to stop, etc.) at the same time.
A federal transportation funding law passed in July 2012, known as the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), provided $17.5 million in grants during fiscal year 2013 for states with primary enforcement laws against distracted driving, including laws prohibiting cell phone use while driving. States with secondary enforcement laws or no laws at all are ineligible to receive this grant funding.[3][4]
Laws by state[edit]
No state bans all cell phone use for all drivers. However, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia (plus Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands) prohibit all drivers from using hand-held cell phones while driving. 36 states and Washington, D.C. ban all cell phone use by newer drivers; while 19 states and Washington, D.C. prohibit any cell phone use by school bus drivers if children are present.[2]
Table: Cell Phone Restrictions While Driving in the US and Territories[5]
State
Total handheld device ban applied to:
Any cell phone use by driver prohibited if:
Bus driver use restriction(s)
Texting & Internet Access
Comment
Alabama 16 and under, and 17 w/ temporary license or if licensed under six months (primary violation) texting prohibited (primary)[6]
Alaska totally prohibited No restrictions on cell phone use[7]
Arizona texting prohibited[6] none[6]
Arkansas 18–20 years old (primary violation) under 18 (secondary violation) totally prohibited texting prohibited (primary)[6] Any cell phone use prohibited in school or construction zones (secondary violation).
California All (primary violation)[8] under 18 (secondary violation)[9] totally prohibited (primary) texting prohibited[6]
Colorado on learner's permit or under 18 (primary violation)[8] totally prohibited (primary)[6]
Connecticut All (primary violation) under 18 (primary violation) totally prohibited
Delaware All (primary violation) on learner or intermediate license (primary violation)[8] totally prohibited
Florida Cell phone use allowed while operating a car as long as the sound goes through only one ear.[8]
Georgia under 18 (primary violation) totally prohibited
Guam All (primary violation)
Hawaii All (primary violation)[10] under 18 (primary violation) totally prohibited Statewide law entered into force July 2013; all counties had existing bans on cell phone use. Drivers 18 and older may use hands-free devices.[10]
Idaho No statewide laws enacted; authorities track "distractions" on accident reports.
Illinois All (primary violation) any driver under 19 (primary violation) totally prohibited Any cell phone use prohibited in school or construction zones or within 500 feet of an emergency scene (primary violation).[11]
Indiana under 18 (primary violation)
Iowa on restricted or intermediate license (primary violation) totally prohibited (primary) July 1, 2017 updated the texting law to be enforced as a primary reason an officer can stop you. "Texting" is defined as: texting, internet browsing, playing games, and reading social media applications.[12][13]
If proven you were "texting" during a traffic fatality, it is deemed a Class C felony, and you can be put into prison for up to 10 years.[14][13]
Kansas on learner or intermediate license (primary violation)
Kentucky under 18 (primary violation) totally prohibited
Louisiana learner or intermediate license holder (regardless of age) (primary violation) 1st year of license (primary violation if under 18) totally prohibited
Maine under 18 (primary violation) under 18 w/ learner or provisional license (secondary violation)[8]
Maryland all (primary violation)[15] under 18 w/ restricted learner or intermediate license[8]
Massachusetts under 18 (primary violation) totally prohibited Cell phone use allowed as long as one hand is on the wheel at all times.[8]
Michigan level-1 or level-2 license (primary violation)
Minnesota under 18 w/ learner or provisional license (primary violation)[8] totally prohibited
Mississippi totally prohibited
Missouri
Montana None.
Nebraska under 18 w/ learner or intermediate license (secondary violation)
Nevada all (primary violation)[16]
New Hampshire all (primary violation) totally prohibited # (1st Offense) $100 Fine
(2nd Offense) $250 Fine.
(3rd Offense) $500 Fine, + a 2-year suspension of drivers license.
New Jersey all (primary violation)[17] on permit or provisional license (primary violation).[8] totally prohibited
New Mexico Local Option by Jurisdiction[8] on learner or provisional license (primary violation)
New York all (primary violation)[18]
North Carolina under 18 (primary violation) totally prohibited texting prohibited (Primary) Internet access okay
North Dakota under 18 (primary violation)
Ohio under 18 (primary violation)[19]
Oklahoma learner or intermediate license holder (primary violation) totally prohibited
Oregon all (primary violation) under 18 (primary violation)[8]
Pennsylvania $50 fine for texting while driving.[8]
Puerto Rico all (primary violation)
Rhode Island under 18 (primary violation)[8] totally prohibited
South Carolina Authorities can impose fines and track "distractions" on accident reports under Contributing Factors.
South Dakota on learner or intermediate license (secondary violation)
Tennessee on learner or intermediate license (primary violation)[8] totally prohibited texting prohibited [20]
Texas Driving through school zones under 18 (primary violation) totally prohibited texting prohibited [21]
Utah under 18 (primary violation) Regulated under distracted driving laws.[8]
Vermont all (primary violation) under 18 (primary violation) [22]
Virgin Islands all (primary violation)
Virginia under 18 (primary violation)[8] under 18 (secondary violation)[8] totally prohibited texting prohibited Use of phone for text or email by the driver whilst vehicle is operational on state roads is prohibited. An exception exists for using GPS, dialing a number to make a call, or reporting an emergency.
Washington all (primary violation)[8] on learner or intermediate license (primary violation) Texting prohibited
Washington, D.C. all (primary violation) on learner permit (primary violation)[8] totally prohibited
West Virginia all (primary violation) under 18 w/ learner or intermediate license (primary violation)
Wisconsin Driving through construction zones on learner or intermediate license (primary violation)
Wyoming on learner or intermediate license (primary violation)[8]
Preemption Laws[edit]
Often, local authorities pass their own distracted driving bans—most include the use of cell phones while driving. Several states (Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma) have prohibited localities from enacting their own laws regarding cell phone use.[2]
Cost of distracted driving[edit]
A 2014 report from the National Safety Council, which compiles data on injuries and fatalities from 2013 and earlier, concluded that use of mobile phones caused 26% of U.S. car accidents.[23] Just 5% of mobile phone-related accidents in the U.S. involved texting: "The majority of the accidents involve drivers distracted while talking on handheld or hands-free cellphones."[23]
The U.S. Department of Transportation has established an official website to combat distracted driving, Distraction.gov.[24]
In 2010, the State Farm insurance company stated that mobile phone use annually resulted in: 636,000 crashes, 330,000 personal injuries, 12,000 major injuries, 2,700 deaths, and US$43 billion in damages.[25]
See also[edit]
Texting while driving
References[edit]
Jump up ^ State Laws; G"overnment: Get the Facts;" retrieved April 2013
^ Jump up to: a b c Cellphone Laws; GHSA on line; retrieved April 30, 2013
Jump up ^ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (August 22, 2012), U.S. Department of Transportation Announces New Federal Grant Program to Help States Fight Distracted Driving, retrieved August 30, 2013
Jump up ^ American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (August 24, 2012), "States Vie for New Federal Funding to Help End Distracted Driving", AASHTO Journal, retrieved August 30, 2013
Jump up ^ Cell Phone Driving Bans...; PC World; retrieved May 01, 2013
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Cellular Phone Use and Texting While Driving Laws; NCSL online; accessed October 4, 2016
Jump up ^ Alaska Driving Laws; NOLO organization online; Accessed October 4, 2016
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Let's Talk (May 1, 2013). "Cell Phone Driving Laws by State". Archived from the original on December 26, 2012.
Jump up ^ Cell Phones and Driving in California; NOLO.com; retrieved May 01, 2013
^ Jump up to: a b Busek, Amy (May 21, 2013), "Law bans driver's use of cellphone", Honolulu Star-Advertiser, retrieved July 22, 2013 (subscription required)
Jump up ^ Cell Phone Laws; Insurance institute for Highway Safety; retrieved April 2013
Jump up ^ https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/LGE/87/SF234.pdf
^ Jump up to: a b "It's official: Texting while driving in Iowa can get you pulled over — and even land you in prison". Des Moines Register. Retrieved 2017-06-25.
Jump up ^ https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=87&ba=SF%20444
Jump up ^ New Bill Makes Talking On Handheld Cell Phone While Driving Primary Offense; March 03, 2013 article; CBS Baltimore; retrieved May 01, 2013
Jump up ^ Handheld Cell Phone Ban; Nevada DOT online; retrieved May 01, 2013
Jump up ^ [The New Jersey Driver Manual]
Jump up ^ Cell Phone; NYS: Department of Motor Vehicles on line; retrieved April 2013
Jump up ^ Ticketing begins on state law prohibiting cellphone use by young drivers: Road Rant; February 28, 2013 article; by John Horton; at The Plain Dealer; retrieved April 2013
Jump up ^ http://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2010/title-55/chapter-8/55-8-199
Jump up ^ [1] What you need to know about Texas' texting and driving ban; Dallas News accessed September 2017
Jump up ^ Morning Commuters Mostly Stow Cellphones; Burlington Freepress on line; accessed October 2016
^ Jump up to: a b Gabrielle Kratsas, Cellphone use causes over 1 in 4 car accidents, USA Today (March 28, 2014).
Jump up ^ Distraction.gov, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Jump up ^ Cell Phone Use While Driving; State Farm – Learning Center; retrieved May 01, 2013
Further reading[edit]
William Saletan (October 23, 2008). "The Mind-BlackBerry Problem: Hey, you! Cell-phone zombie! Get off the road!". slate.com. Retrieved May 1, 2013.
[show]
v
t
e
Mobile phones
General
Features
GSM
services
History
Operating system
Security
Telephony
airplane mode
Text messaging
SMS
MMS
Spam
Tracking
Web browsing
HTML5
Software
Apps
Development
Distribution
Management
Cloud computing
Commerce
Banking
Marketing
advertising
campaigns
Payments
contactless
donating
Ticketing
Content
Blogging
Email
Gambling
Gaming
Health
Instant messaging
Learning
Music
News
Search
local
Social
address book
Television
Culture
Charms
Comics
Dating
Japanese culture
Novels
Ringtones
silent mode
Selfie
Txtspk
Wallpaper
Devices
Manufacturers
3D phone
Camera phone
Car phone
Feature phone
Projector phone
Satellite phone
Smartphone
SIM lock
Form factors
Bar
Flip
Phablet
Slider
Smartwatch
Smartphones
Android devices
rooting
BlackBerry 10
iPhone
iOS jailbreaking
Open-source mobile phones
Symbian devices
Windows Phone devices
Environment
and health
BlackBerry thumb
Driving safety
Electronic waste
External power supply
Phantom vibration syndrome
Radiation and health
Recycling
Law
Carrier IQ
Use restrictions while driving
Legality of recording by civilians
Photography and the law
Telephone tapping
Texting while driving
Mobile phones in prison
Networking
Channel capacity
Frequencies
Multi-band
Network operator
list
Roaming
Signal
SIM (dual SIM)
Standards comparison
Tethering
VoIP
WAP
XHTML-MP
Generations
0G
1G
2G
3G
adoption
3.5G
4G
4.5G
5G
[show]
v
t
e
Traffic law and safety
Rules of the road
All-way stop
Assured Clear Distance Ahead
Australian Road Rules
Boulevard rule
Green Cross Code
Move over law
New Zealand Road Code
Overtaking
Right- and left-hand traffic
Right-of-way
School bus traffic stop laws
Traffic code
Turn on red
Vienna Convention on Road Traffic
Road user guides
Driver's manual
The Highway Code
The Highway Code (Malta)
Road Users' Code
Rules of the Road (Ireland)
Enforcement
Breathalyzer
Camera
Enforcement
Red light
Highway patrol/State police
Parking enforcement
Road traffic control
Textalyzer
Traffic court
Traffic guard
Traffic stop
Traffic ticket
Warning
Speed limit
Advisory speed limit
Assured Clear Distance Ahead
National Maximum Speed Law
School zone
Speed limit enforcement
Speed limits by country
Category: Speed limits by country
Moving violations
Driving under the influence
Canada
United States
Distracted driving
Mobile phones and driving
Texting while driving
Reckless driving
Street racing
Tailgating
Vehicular homicide
Wrong-way driving
Driver licensing
Commercial driver's license
European driving licence
Graduated driver licensing
Inter-American Driving Permit
International Driving Permit
Learner's permit
Point system
Driving licences by country
List of countries by minimum driving age
Traffic violations reciprocity
Commercial Driver's License Information System
Driver License Agreement
Driver License Compact
Non-Resident Violator Compact
Parking
Alternate-side parking
Decriminalised parking enforcement
Disabled parking permit
Double parking
Parking chair
Parking violation
Wheel clamp
Car safety
Seat belt laws
Click It or Ticket
Clunk Click Every Trip
Road safety
Tachograph
Digital tachograph
Drivers' working hours (Europe)
Epilepsy and driving
Hours of service (US)
"How's my driving?" sign
Old age and driving
Sleep deprived driving
Slow moving vehicle
Vision Zero
[show]
v
t
e
United States state-related lists
List of states and territories of the United States
Demographics
Educational attainment
Irreligion
Largest cities by population
Most popular given names
Most populous counties
Population
Density
Growth rate
Birth and death rates
Historical
African American
Amish
Hispanic and Latino
Spanish-speaking
Economy
Billionaires
Budgets
Companies
Federal tax revenue
Federal taxation and spending
Gross domestic product
Growth rate
Per capita
Income
Household
Per capita
Inequality
Minimum wages
Poverty rates
Sales taxes
Sovereign wealth funds
State income taxes
Flat rate
None
Unemployment rates
Union affiliation
Vehicles per capita
Environment
Carbon dioxide emissions
Parks
Renewable energy
Superfund sites
Wilderness areas
Geography
Area
Coastline
Elevation
Forest
Geographic centers
Government
Attorneys general
Capitals
Historical
Capitol buildings
Comparison
Counties
Alphabetical
Current State Legislators
Governors
Lieutenant governors
Legislatures
Libraries and archives
Official languages
Poets laureate
State auditors
State secretaries of state
State superintendents of education
State supreme courts
State treasurers
Health
Human Development Index
Fertility rates
Hospitals
Life expectancy
Obesity rates
History
Date of statehood
Name etymologies
Historical societies and museums
National Historic Landmarks
National Register of Historic Places
State partitions
Historic regions
Law
Abortion
Age of consent
Alcohol
Dry communities
Alford plea
Cell phone use while driving
Constitutions
Firearms
Homicide
Law enforcement agencies
Legality of cannabis
Peace Index
Prisons
Incarceration rate
Same-sex unions
Former constitutional bans
Marriage law
Seat belt laws
Self-representation
Smoking bans
Statutory codes
Miscellaneous
Abbreviations
Demonyms
Fictional states
Flags
Insignia
Symbols
Tallest buildings
Time zones
Category
Commons
Portals
[show]
v
t
e
Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in North America
Sovereign states
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Canada
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Grenada
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago
United States
Dependencies and
other territories
Anguilla
Aruba
Bermuda
Bonaire
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Curaçao
Greenland
Guadeloupe
Martinique
Montserrat
Puerto Rico
Saint Barthélemy
Saint Martin
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Saba
Sint Eustatius
Sint Maarten
Turks and Caicos Islands
United States Virgin Islands
[show]
v
t
e
Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in the Americas
North America
South America
Sovereign states
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Grenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Suriname
Trinidad and Tobago
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Dependencies and
other territories
Anguilla
Aruba
Bermuda
Bonaire
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Curaçao
Falkland Islands
French Guiana
Greenland
Guadeloupe
Martinique
Montserrat
Puerto Rico
Saint Barthélemy
Saint Martin
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Saba
Sint Eustatius
Sint Maarten
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Turks and Caicos Islands
US Virgin Islands
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Restrictions_on_cell_phone_use_while_driving_in_the_United_States&oldid=799923659"
Categories:
Hazardous motor vehicle activities
Road safety
United States law-related lists
Vehicle law
Mobile phone culture
Hidden categories:
Pages containing links to subscription-only content
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Add links
This page was last edited on 10 September 2017, at 16:52.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

attrs: id class style

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: img

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: href class

attrs: href title

values: /wiki/Motorist mw-redirect Motorist

values:
/wiki/Handheld_device
mw-redirect
Handheld device

values: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

values:
/wiki/U.S._Virgin_Islands
mw-redirect
U.S. Virgin Islands

values:
headerSort
0
columnheader button
Sort ascending

values: Edit section: Cost of distracted driving

values:
/wiki/U.S._Department_of_Transportation
mw-redirect
U.S. Department of Transportation

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.drivinglaws.org/alaska.php#

values: Let's Talk (website) (page does not exist)

values: font-size:0.95em; font-size: 90%; color: #555

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.dmv.ny.gov/cellphone.htm

values:
nofollow
http://www.distraction.gov/
external text

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
http://www.slate.com/id/2202978/
external text

values:
/wiki/Short_Message_Service
mw-redirect
Short Message Service

values: List of mobile app distribution platforms

values:
/wiki/Mobile_wallpaper
mw-redirect
Mobile wallpaper

values:
/wiki/Android_rooting
mw-redirect
Android rooting

values:
/wiki/List_of_Symbian_devices
mw-redirect
List of Symbian devices

values:
/wiki/List_of_Windows_Phone_devices
mw-redirect
List of Windows Phone devices

values:
/wiki/BlackBerry_thumb
mw-redirect
BlackBerry thumb

values:
/wiki/Common_External_Power_Supply
mw-redirect
Common External Power Supply

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values:
/wiki/Assured_Clear_Distance_Ahead
mw-redirect
Assured Clear Distance Ahead

values: List of countries by minimum driving age

values: Commercial Driver's License Information System

values: List of states and territories of the United States

values: List of U.S. states by educational attainment

values: List of U.S. states' largest cities by population

values: List of most popular given names by state in the United States

values: List of the most populous counties by U.S. state

values: List of U.S. states and territories by population

values: List of U.S. states by population density

values: List of U.S. states by population growth rate

values: List of U.S. states and territories by birth and death rates

values: List of U.S. states by historical population

values: List of U.S. states by African-American population

values: List of U.S. states by Hispanic and Latino population

values: List of U.S. states by the number of billionaires

values: List of companies of the United States by state

values: List of U.S. states by economic growth rate

values: List of U.S. states by sovereign wealth funds

values: List of U.S. states by unemployment rate

values: List of U.S. states by vehicles per capita

values: List of U.S. states by carbon dioxide emissions

values: List of U.S. states by electricity production from renewable sources

values: List of U.S. state and tribal wilderness areas

values: List of U.S. states and territories by area

values: Forest cover by state in the United States

values: List of state capitols in the United States

values: List of current United States lieutenant governors

values: List of United States state legislatures

values: List of U.S. state libraries and archives

values: Secretary of state (U.S. state government)

values: List of U.S. states by American Human Development Index

values: List of U.S. states and territories by fertility rate

values: List of U.S. states by date of admission to the Union

values: List of state name etymologies of the United States

values: List of U.S. state historical societies and museums

values: List of U.S. National Historic Landmarks by state

values: United States National Register of Historic Places listings

values:
/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_the_United_States
mw-redirect
Alcohol laws of the United States

values: List of U.S. states by Alford plea usage

values:
/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutions
mw-redirect
List of U.S. state constitutions

values: Gun violence in the United States by state

values: List of United States state and local law enforcement agencies

values: List of U.S. states by incarceration rate

values: List of U.S. state laws on same-sex unions

values: List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type

values: Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state

values: List of U.S. state constitutional provisions allowing self-representation in state courts

values: List of smoking bans in the United States

values:
/wiki/List_of_demonyms_for_U.S._states
mw-redirect
List of demonyms for U.S. states

values: Flags of the U.S. states and territories

values: List of U.S. state, district, and territorial insignia

attrs: alt src title width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: commons:Category:States of the United States

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible collapsed navbox-inner

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Antigua and Barbuda (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in the Bahamas (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Barbados (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Belize (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Canada (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Costa Rica (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Cuba (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Dominica (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in the Dominican Republic (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in El Salvador (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Grenada (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Guatemala (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Haiti (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Honduras (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Jamaica (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Mexico (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Nicaragua (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Panama (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Saint Kitts and Nevis (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Saint Lucia (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Trinidad and Tobago (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Anguilla (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Aruba (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Bermuda (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Bonaire (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in the British Virgin Islands (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in the Cayman Islands (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Curaçao (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Greenland (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Guadeloupe (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Martinique (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Montserrat (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Puerto Rico (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Saint Barthélemy (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in the Collectivity of Saint Martin (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Saint Pierre and Miquelon (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Saba (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Sint Eustatius (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Sint Maarten (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in the Turks and Caicos Islands (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in the United States Virgin Islands (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in North America (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in South America (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Argentina (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Bolivia (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Brazil (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Chile (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Colombia (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Ecuador (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Guyana (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Paraguay (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Peru (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Suriname (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Uruguay (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Venezuela (page does not exist)

values:
navbox-image
2
width:1px;padding:0px 0px 0px 2px

values:
/wiki/Territory_(subdivision)
mw-redirect
Territory (subdivision)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in the Falkland Islands (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in French Guiana (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in Saint Martin (France) (page does not exist)

values: Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (page does not exist)

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Category:Hazardous motor vehicle activities

values: Category:United States law-related lists

values: Category:Pages containing links to subscription-only content

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Restrictions_on_cell_phone_use_while_driving_in_the_United_States rootpage-Restrictions_on_cell_phone_use_while_driving_in_the_United_States skin-vector action-view


text:
Gregg v. Georgia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Gregg v. Georgia
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 30–31, 1976
Decided July 2, 1976
Full case name
Troy Leon Gregg v. State of Georgia; Charles William Proffitt v. State of Florida; Jerry Lane Jurek v. State of Texas; James Tyrone Woodson, et al. v. State of North Carolina; Roberts, et al. v. Louisiana
Citations
428 U.S. 153 (more)
96 S. Ct. 2909; 49 L. Ed. 2d 859; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 82
Prior history
Certiorari to the Supreme Courts of Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, and Louisiana, and the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Holding
The imposition of the death penalty does not, automatically, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. If the jury is furnished with standards to direct and limit the sentencing discretion, and the jury's decision is subjected to meaningful appellate review, the death sentence may be constitutional. If, however, the death penalty is mandatory, such that there is no provision for mercy based on the characteristics of the offender, then it is unconstitutional.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
Plurality
Stewart, Powell, Stevens
Concurrence
Rehnquist
Concurrence
White, joined by Burger, Rehnquist
Concurrence
Blackmun
Dissent
Brennan
Dissent
Marshall
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. VIII
Gregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), reaffirmed the United States Supreme Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg. Referred to by a leading scholar as the July 2 Cases[1] and elsewhere referred to by the lead case Gregg, the Supreme Court set forth the two main features that capital sentencing procedures must employ in order to comply with the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments". The decision essentially ended the de facto moratorium on the death penalty imposed by the Court in its 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
Contents
[hide]
1 Background
1.1 Capital punishment and the Eighth Amendment
1.2 Historical disapproval of mandatory death sentences
2 Decision of the Court
2.1 Constitutional sentencing procedures
3 Capital punishment schemes approved by the Court
3.1 Georgia
3.2 Florida
3.3 Texas
4 Capital punishment schemes rejected by the Court
4.1 North Carolina
4.2 Louisiana
5 Other views expressed in these cases
6 Aftermath
7 See also
8 Footnotes
9 External links
Background[edit]
All five cases share the same basic procedural history. After the Furman decision, the states of Georgia, Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and Louisiana amended their death penalty statutes to meet the Furman guidelines. Subsequently, the five named defendants[2] were convicted of murder and sentenced to death in their respective states. The respective state supreme court[3] upheld the death sentence. The defendants then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review their death sentence, asking the Court to go beyond Furman and declare once and for all the death penalty to be "cruel and unusual punishment" and thus in violation of the Constitution; the Court agreed to hear the cases.
In the July 2 Cases, the Court's goal was to provide guidance to states in the wake of Furman. In Furman only one basic idea could command a majority vote of the Justices: capital punishment, as then practiced in the United States, was cruel and unusual punishment because there were no rational standards that determined when it was imposed and when it was not. The question the Court resolved in these cases was not whether the death sentence imposed on each of the individual defendants was cruel, but rather whether the process by which those sentences were imposed was rational and objectively reviewable.
Capital punishment and the Eighth Amendment[edit]
The defendants in each of the five cases urged the Court to go further than it had in Furman by holding once and for all that capital punishment was cruel and unusual punishment that violated the Eighth Amendment. However the Court responded that "The most marked indication of society's endorsement of the death penalty for murder is the legislative response to Furman." Both Congress and 35 states had complied with the Court's dictates in Furman by either specifying factors to be weighed and procedures to be followed when imposing a death sentence, or dictating that the death penalty would be mandatory for specific crimes. Furthermore, a referendum in California had overturned the California Supreme Court's earlier decision (California v. Anderson) holding that the death penalty violated the California constitution. The fact that juries remained willing to impose the death penalty also contributed to the Court's conclusion that American society did not believe in 1976 that the death penalty was unconstitutional.
The Court also found that the death penalty "comports with the basic concept of human dignity at the core of the [Eighth] Amendment". The death penalty serves two principal social purposes—retribution and deterrence. "In part, capital punishment is an expression of society's moral outrage at particularly offensive conduct". But this outrage must be expressed in an ordered fashion, for America is a society of laws. Retribution is consistent with human dignity, because society believes that "certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death". And although it is difficult to determine statistically how much crime the death penalty actually deters, the Court found that in 1976 there was "no convincing empirical evidence" supporting either the view that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime or the opposite view. Still, the Court could not completely discount the possibility that for certain "carefully contemplated murderers", "the possible penalty of death may well enter into the cold calculus that precedes the decision to act".
Finally, the Court considered whether the death penalty is "disproportionate in relation to the crime for which it is imposed". Although death is severe and irrevocable, the Court could not say that death was always disproportionate to the crime of deliberately taking human life. "It is an extreme sanction, suitable to the most extreme of crimes."
Historical disapproval of mandatory death sentences[edit]
The Court was determined to simultaneously save capital punishment in the United States and impose some reasoned basis for carrying it out. That reasoning flows from the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause. Although capital punishment, per se, was not found by the Court to be cruel and unusual, it must still be carried out in a manner consistent with the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. In the Court's view, the country's history with capital punishment suggests that those evolving standards of decency could not tolerate a return to the mandatory death penalty for murder that had prevailed in medieval England.
In medieval England, the penalty for a vast number of serious crimes, including murder, was death. This rule traveled with the colonists to America, and was the law in all states at the time the Eighth Amendment was adopted in 1791. By then, however, a problem with the common-law mandatory death penalty had crept into the legal system. If the jury has only two options—convicting a defendant of murder, where the penalty is death, or acquitting the defendant outright—it has no vehicle to express the sentiment that the defendant should be punished somehow, but not executed. Faced with this dilemma, some juries would acquit the defendant in order to spare his life. Of course, this meant that an obviously guilty person would go free.
To mitigate the harshness of the common-law rule, Pennsylvania divided murder into "degrees" in 1794. First-degree murder, a capital crime, was limited to all "willful, deliberate, and premeditated" murders. All other murder was second-degree murder, and not a capital crime. This development eased the tension created by the common-law mandatory death penalty, but some juries still refused to convict defendants who were clearly guilty of first-degree murder because that crime carried a mandatory death penalty.
Recognizing that juries in capital cases found discretion in sentencing desirable, Tennessee, Alabama, and Louisiana afforded their juries this discretion in the 1840s. Finally, the jury could respond to mitigating factors about the crime or the criminal and withhold the death penalty even for convicted first-degree murderers. This development spread, and by 1900 23 states and the federal government had discretionary sentencing in capital cases. Fourteen more states followed in the first two decades of the 20th century, and by 1963 all death-penalty jurisdictions employed discretionary sentencing.
Decision of the Court[edit]
The Court set out two broad guidelines that legislatures must follow in order to craft a constitutional capital sentencing scheme:
First, the scheme must provide objective criteria to direct and limit the death sentencing discretion. The objectiveness of these criteria must in turn be ensured by appellate review of all death sentences.
Second, the scheme must allow the sentencer (whether judge or jury) to take into account the character and record of an individual defendant.
In Gregg, Proffitt, and Jurek, the Court found that the capital sentencing schemes of Georgia, Florida, and Texas, respectively, met these criteria; whereas in Woodson and Roberts, the Court found that the sentencing schemes of North Carolina and Louisiana did not.
Constitutional sentencing procedures[edit]
The proposition that the death penalty was not always cruel and unusual punishment was just the beginning of the discussion. Furman had held that "where discretion is afforded a sentencing body on a matter so grave as the determination of whether a human life should be taken or spared, that discretion must be suitably directed and limited so as to minimize the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action." The question the Court confronted in these five cases was whether the procedures crafted by Georgia, Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and Louisiana adequately minimized that risk. In all five cases, the Court's primary focus was on the jury.
Although in most criminal cases the judge decides and imposes the sentence,"jury sentencing has been considered desirable in capital cases in order to maintain a link between contemporary community values and the penal system—a link without which the determination of punishment could hardly reflect the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." The drafters of the Model Penal Code concluded that the now-familiar bifurcated procedure, in which the jury first considers the question of guilt without regard to punishment, and then determines whether the punishment should be death or life imprisonment, is the preferable model. This was the model that the Court approved in these cases—although it tacitly approved a model without any jury involvement in the sentencing process, an approval that persisted until 2002's Ring v. Arizona.
The drawback of having juries rather than judges fix the penalty in capital cases is the risk that they will have no frame of reference for imposing the death penalty in a rational manner. Although this problem may not be totally correctible, the Court trusted that the guidance given the jury by the aggravating factors or other special-verdict questions would assist it in deciding on a sentence. The drafters of the Model Penal Code "concluded that it is within the realm of possibility to point to the main circumstances of aggravation and mitigation that should be weighed and weighed against each other when they are presented in a concrete case." For the Court, these factors adequately guarded against the risk of arbitrary imposition of the death sentence.
Every death sentence involves first an eligibility determination and then a selection of an eligible defendant for the death penalty. A defendant is eligible for the death penalty once the jury has concluded that he is a member of that narrow class of criminal defendants who have committed the most morally outrageous of crimes. An eligible defendant is then selected for the death penalty after the sentencer takes into account mitigating evidence about the character and record of the defendant in order to decide whether that individual is worthy of a death sentence.
In addition to jury sentencing through the guidance of aggravating factors, a constitutional capital sentencing scheme must provide for appellate review of the death sentence, typically by the state's supreme court. This review must not be a rubber stamp; there must be evidence in the state's decisional law that the court takes seriously its responsibility to ensure that the sentence imposed was not arbitrary. Currently, those states which still maintain a death penalty option have a mandatory appeal of the sentence (defendants sentenced to death cannot waive this appeal, but can waive appeals beyond this stage subject to a competency hearing).
With Gregg and the companion cases, the Court approved three different schemes that had sufficiently narrow eligibility criteria and at the same time sufficiently broad discretion in selection. By contrast, the two schemes the Court disapproved had overly broad eligibility criteria and then no discretion in sentencing.
Capital punishment schemes approved by the Court[edit]
Georgia[edit]
Under the Georgia scheme (which generally followed the Model Penal Code), after the defendant was convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, a capital crime (under the first part of the bifurcated trial proceeding),[4] the second part of the bifurcated trial involved an additional hearing at which the jury received additional evidence in aggravation and mitigation. In order for the defendant to be eligible for the death penalty, the jury needed to find the existence of one of ten aggravating factors:
The defendant has previously been convicted of a capital felony or has a history of committing serious felonies.
The capital felony was committed while the defendant was committing another capital felony.
The defendant created a grave risk of death to others.
The defendant committed the crime for the purpose of receiving money or anything else of value.
The defendant killed a judge or prosecutor exercising his official duties.
The defendant hired a killer.
The crime was "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind, or an aggravated battery to the victim."[5]
The defendant killed a police officer, prison guard, or fireman in the line of duty.
The offense was committed by someone who had escaped from prison.
The offense was committed for the purpose of avoiding arrest.
Once the jury found that one or more of the aggravating factors existed beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant would be eligible for the death penalty. The jury may, but was not required to, then evaluate all the evidence it had heard, including mitigating evidence and other aggravating evidence not supporting one of the ten factors beyond a reasonable doubt—and decide whether the defendant should live or die. This scheme is called a non-weighing scheme, because the sentencer is not required to weigh the statutory aggravating factors against mitigating evidence before imposing a death sentence.[6]
The Court found that, because of the jury's finding at least one aggravating factor was a prerequisite for imposing the death penalty, Georgia's scheme adequately narrowed the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty. Although there was admittedly some discretion as to the mitigation phase, that discretion is channeled in an objective way, and therefore provided for individualized sentencing. Thus, Georgia's death penalty scheme complied with the Furman requirements and was thus approved by the Court.
Florida[edit]
Florida's scheme differed from Georgia's in two respects.
First, at the sentencing hearing of a capital felon,[7] the jury determined whether one or more aggravating factors exist, drawing on a list very similar to Georgia's. Then the jury was specifically asked to weigh the mitigating evidence presented against the statutory aggravating factors that have been proved. This scheme is called a weighing scheme.
Second, the jury's role was only advisory; the judge could disregard the jury's sentencing recommendation, but had to explain his reasoning if he did. Under Florida law, if the jury recommended life but the judge imposed a death sentence, "the facts suggesting a sentence of death should be so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ." The trial judge must independently reweigh the aggravating factors against the mitigating factors.
The Court concluded that, as the sentencer's discretion was limited in an objective fashion and directed in a reviewable manner, Florida's scheme also adequately narrowed the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty. The Court noted that Florida's scheme came closest to the Model Penal Code's recommendation of an ideal sentencing scheme, as it used a weighing scheme whereas Georgia's scheme did not, thus allowing for individual sentencing. Thus, Florida's death penalty scheme also complied with the Furman requirements and was thus also approved by the Court.
Texas[edit]
Texas' scheme differed considerably from that suggested by the Model Penal Code and followed in large part by Georgia and Florida.
In order to narrow the class of death penalty-eligible defendants as required by Furman, the Texas Legislature did not adopt the "aggravating factors" approach outlined by the Model Penal Code. Instead, it chose to modify and severely narrow the legal definition of "capital murder", thus requiring certain objective elements to be present before one could be charged with capital murder and thus eligible for the death penalty. The 1976 law defined capital murder in Texas as involving one of the five situations:
murder of a police officer or fireman;
murder committed in the course of committing kidnapping, burglary, robbery, rape, or arson;
murder committed for remuneration (contract killing);
murder committed while escaping or attempting to escape from a penal institution; and
murder committed by a prison inmate when the victim is a prison employee.
If the defendant was convicted of capital murder, and if the prosecution sought the death penalty (which it has never been required to do in Texas), the second part of the bifurcated trial required the jury to consider two (or sometimes three) "special issues":
whether the conduct of the defendant that caused the death of the deceased was committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that the death of the deceased or another would result;
whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society (under Texas law, "society" was defined as both inside and outside of the prison system; thus, a defendant who would pose a threat to persons inside prison – such as other inmates or correctional officers – would be eligible for the death penalty); and
if raised by the evidence, whether the conduct of the defendant in killing the deceased was unreasonable in response to the provocation, if any, by the deceased.
If all applicable special issues were answered in the affirmative, then the result would be an automatic death sentence; if any special issue was not answered in the affirmative, the sentence would be life imprisonment.
The Court concluded that Texas' narrow legal definition of capital murder served the same purpose as the aggravating factors in the Georgia and Florida schemes, that being to adequately narrow the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty. The Court even observed that "the principal difference between Texas and the other two States [Georgia and Florida] is that the death penalty is an available sentencing option - even potentially - for a smaller class of murders in Texas"[8] (an ironic observation given that, in the post-Gregg era, Texas has executed more defendants than any other state).
However, the special issues feature and its automatic death sentence imposition (if all were answered in the affirmative) was the key issue in the Court's analysis. In its review, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (which serves as the body for automatic appeal of death sentences in Texas) indicated that the second special issue (the "continuing threat to society" issue) would allow the defendant to present mitigating evidence to the jury.[9] The Court concluded that the second special issue would allow for the same extensive consideration of mitigating evidence as the Georgia and Florida schemes. Thus, Texas' death penalty scheme, though considerably different from Florida's and Georgia's also complied with the Furman requirements and was thus also approved by the Court.
The defendant in this case, Jerry Jurek (TDCJ #508), would ultimately see his sentence commuted to life in prison.[10] Texas would later amend its three questions, keeping the "continuing threat to society" question, adding a second question specifically dealing with mitigating evidence, and adding a third question applicable only if the defendant was convicted as an accessory.
Capital punishment schemes rejected by the Court[edit]
North Carolina[edit]
In 1974, the North Carolina General Assembly (similar to the approach taken by the Texas Legislature) chose to adopt a narrow definition of "first-degree murder" which would be eligible for the death penalty, which was defined as:
murder perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any arson, rape, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony.
North Carolina had also enacted a mandatory death penalty for first-degree rape, but the Court later ruled in Coker v. Georgia that rape is not a capital crime, at least where the victim is not killed; the statutes mandating death penalty for first-degree arson and first-degree burglary were abrogated by the General Assembly.
The North Carolina Supreme Court had ruled that its capital sentencing scheme could survive Furman analysis if the legislature removed the discretionary sentencing provision. However, it was the lack of discretion in sentencing that the Court used to rule the scheme unconstitutional.
Louisiana[edit]
In 1973, the Louisiana Legislature adopted the approach taken by North Carolina, by redefining first-degree murder as the killing of a human being in one of five circumstances:
when the offender has a specific intent to kill and is engaged in the perpetration of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape, or armed robbery;
when the offender has a specific intent to kill a fireman or police officer engaged in the performance of his duties;
when the offender has a specific intent to kill and has previously been convicted of an unrelated murder or is serving a life sentence;
when the offender has a specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm on more than one person; and
when the offender has a specific intent to kill and has been offered or has received anything of value for committing the murder
Also, unlike North Carolina, Louisiana law required the jury in all first-degree murder cases to be instructed on second-degree murder and manslaughter, crimes ineligible for the death penalty.
Although Louisiana had created a class of death-eligible crimes somewhat narrower than North Carolina had, it still had a mandatory death penalty for a significant range of crimes, which were aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping and treason; the lack of discretion in sentencing caused the Louisiana scheme to suffer the same unconstitutional infirmities as North Carolina's.
Other views expressed in these cases[edit]
Justices Brennan and Marshall expressed their views, which they also articulated in Furman, that the death penalty does not deter crime and that American society has evolved to the point that it is no longer an appropriate vehicle for expressing retribution. In every subsequent capital case that would come before the Court during their tenures, they would refer to their opinions in Gregg in support of their vote against the death penalty.
Justice White countered that capital punishment cannot be unconstitutional because the Constitution expressly mentions it and because two centuries of Court decisions assumed that it was constitutional. Furthermore, for White the judgment of the legislatures of 35 states was paramount, and suggested that the punishment should remain in use. He also felt that the Court should defer to a state legislature's response to the problem of juror response to the prospect of capital punishment, rather than dictate that the Eighth Amendment requires a particular response.
White also disagreed that the Constitution required a separate penalty hearing before imposing the death penalty. "Even if the character of the accused must be considered under the Eighth Amendment, surely a State is not constitutionally forbidden to provide that the commission of certain crimes conclusively establishes that the criminal's character is such that he deserves death." He also saw no difference between Louisiana's definition of first-degree murder and Texas's definition of capital murder.
Justice Rehnquist would have upheld North Carolina's and Louisiana's mandatory death penalties. He disputed the historical evidence adduced in support of the claim that American juries dislike mandatory death penalties. He also felt that the Court's decisions had an analytical flaw. The Court had struck down the mandatory death penalty because it took away discretion from the jury. Yet, Rehnquist pointed out, a jury in Georgia could reject the death penalty for no reason at all. Thus, Georgia's scheme did not alleviate the concerns articulated in Furman about the arbitrariness of the death penalty any more than North Carolina's ignored them. He also disputed whether the appellate review of death sentences inherent in the systems the Court had approved could truly ensure that each death sentence satisfied those concerns. He finally took issue with the idea that the fact that "death is different" requires any extra safeguards in the sentencing process.
Justice John Paul Stevens remarked in October 2010 that his vote in the decision was regrettable. Stevens wrote that his vote was made with respect for precedent within the court that held capital punishment to be constitutional.[11]
Aftermath[edit]
Utah was the first state to resume executions after capital punishment was reinstated in the United States in 1976, when Gary Gilmore was executed by a firing squad on January 17, 1977.[12] Following his conviction and death sentence Gilmore insisted he wanted to be executed, and for this reason some consider the national moratorium to have only ended in 1979 with electrocution of John Arthur Spenkelink, who resisted his execution.[13]
The July 2 Cases mark the beginning of the United States' modern legal conversation about the death penalty. Major subsequent developments include forbidding the death penalty for rape (Coker v. Georgia), restricting the death penalty in cases of felony murder (Enmund v. Florida), exempting the mentally handicapped (Atkins v. Virginia) and juvenile murderers (Roper v. Simmons) from the death penalty, removing virtually all limitations on the presentation of mitigating evidence (Lockett v. Ohio, Holmes v. South Carolina), requiring precision in the definition of aggravating factors (Godfrey v. Georgia, Walton v. Arizona), and requiring the jury to decide whether aggravating factors have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt (Ring v. Arizona).
See also[edit]
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 428
Footnotes[edit]
Jump up ^ See Liebman, James S. (2006). "Slow Dancing with Death: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment, 1963–2006". Columbia Law Review. 107 (1): 1–130. JSTOR 40041708.
Jump up ^ This article provides information on the crime in Gregg.
Jump up ^ At the time Texas had (and still has) separate courts with final power of review over civil and criminal cases; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was (and remains) the court with final review power over criminal cases.
Jump up ^ After Georgia revised its death penalty law in response to Furman, there were six capital crimes in Georgia: murder, kidnapping, armed robbery, rape, treason, and aircraft hijacking. The Supreme Court's later decision in Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1978), invalidated Georgia's death penalty for rape (and probably also for robbery, at least where death does not result).
Jump up ^ The vagueness of this language was at issue in the later case of Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420 (1980).
Jump up ^ See Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862 (1983).
Jump up ^ The crimes punished by death in Florida are first-degree murder and sexual battery of a child under eleven.
Jump up ^ "FindLaw - Cases and Codes". findlaw.com.
Jump up ^ The Court has subsequently considered at great length the extent to which the Texas special issues allow the jury to consider that evidence. See Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989); Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782 (2001); Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004).
Jump up ^ "Death Row Information". state.tx.us.
Jump up ^ Barnes, Robert (April 17, 2008). "In Reversal, Stevens Says He Opposes Death Penalty". The Washington Post.
Jump up ^ Death Penalty Information Center Archived 2008-04-21 at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ "Nation: At Issue: Crime and Punishment". Time. June 4, 1979. Retrieved April 28, 2010.
External links[edit]
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Gregg v. Georgia
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (full text with links to cited material)
Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976) (full text with links to cited material)
Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976) (full text with links to cited material)
Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976) (full text with links to cited material)
Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976) (full text with links to cited material)
Gregg v. Georgia from C-SPAN's Landmark Cases: Historic Supreme Court Decisions
[hide]
v
t
e
United States 8th Amendment case law
[show]
Cruel and unusual punishment
Incarceration
Weems v. United States (1910)
Graham v. West Virginia (1912)
Robinson v. California (1962)
Rummel v. Estelle (1980)
Solem v. Helm (1983)
Harmelin v. Michigan (1991)
Ewing v. California (2003)
Lockyer v. Andrade (2003)
Graham v. Florida (2010)
Miller v. Alabama (2012)
Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016)
Death penalty
Wilkerson v. Utah (1879)
In re Kemmler (1890)
Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber (1947)
McGautha v. California (1971)
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
California v. Anderson (Cal. 1972)
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
Coker v. Georgia (1977)
Lockett v. Ohio (1978)
Godfrey v. Georgia (1980)
Spaziano v. Florida (1981, 1984)
Enmund v. Florida (1982)
Pulley v. Harris (1984)
Glass v. Louisiana (1985)
Skipper v. South Carolina (1986)
Ford v. Wainwright (1986)
Tison v. Arizona (1987)
Lowenfield v. Phelps (1988)
Maynard v. Cartwright (1988)
Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988)
Penry v. Lynaugh (1989)
Stanford v. Kentucky (1989)
Whitmore v. Arkansas (1990)
Walton v. Arizona (1990)
Herrera v. Collins (1993)
Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
Ring v. Arizona (2002)
Tennard v. Dretke (2004)
Roper v. Simmons (2005)
Bigby v. Dretke (5th Cir. 2005)
Oregon v. Guzek (2006)
Hill v. McDonough (2006)
Kansas v. Marsh (2006)
Panetti v. Quarterman (2007)
Baze v. Rees (2008)
Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008)
Hall v. Florida (2014)
Glossip v. Gross (2015)
Corporal punishment or injuries
Jackson v. Bishop (8th Cir. 1968)
Gates v. Collier (5th Cir. 1974)
Ingraham v. Wright (1977)
Hudson v. McMillian (1992)
Hope v. Pelzer (2002)
Other
Trop v. Dulles (1958)
Robinson v. California (1962)
Powell v. Texas (1968)
Estelle v. Gamble (1976)
Booth v. Maryland (1987)
South Carolina v. Gathers (1989)
Payne v. Tennessee (1991)
Helling v. McKinney (1993)
Farmer v. Brennan (1994)
Madrid v. Gomez (9th Cir. 1998)
Brown v. Plata (2011)
[show]
Excessive bail and fines
Excessive Bail Clause
Stack v. Boyle (1951)
Murphy v. Hunt (1982)
United States v. Salerno (1987)
Excessive Fines Clause
Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (1909)
Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc. (1989)
United States v. Bajakajian (1998)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gregg_v._Georgia&oldid=842277980"
Categories:
United States Supreme Court cases
Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and death penalty case law
Capital punishment in Georgia (U.S. state)
Legal history of Georgia (U.S. state)
1976 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
Hidden categories:
Webarchive template wayback links
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikisource
Languages
Nederlands
Polski
Simple English
Svenska
Edit links
This page was last edited on 21 May 2018, at 12:15.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: i

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: th

attrs: colspan class style

values: text-align:center;font-size:125%;font-weight:bold;background-color: #99c0ff; padding: 0.2em; line-height:1.3em; font-style: italic

value: tr

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg

value: b

value: td

attrs: colspan style

values: Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Amendments to the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Mandatory_death_sentence
mw-redirect
Mandatory death sentence

values: margin:0; padding:0.1em 0.5em; text-align:center; line-height:1.3em;

values:
infobox scotus
width:22em;line-height: 1.3em

values:
/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court
mw-redirect
United States Supreme Court

values:
/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishments
mw-redirect
Cruel and unusual punishments

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 408

values: Edit section: Capital punishment and the Eighth Amendment

values:
/wiki/California_v._Anderson
mw-redirect
California v. Anderson

values:
/wiki/California_Constitution
mw-redirect
California Constitution

values: Edit section: Historical disapproval of mandatory death sentences

values:
/wiki/Mandatory_death_penalty
mw-redirect
Mandatory death penalty

values: Edit section: Constitutional sentencing procedures

values: Edit section: Capital punishment schemes approved by the Court

values: Edit section: Capital punishment schemes rejected by the Court

values:
/wiki/Louisiana_Legislature
mw-redirect
Louisiana Legislature

values: Edit section: Other views expressed in these cases

values:
/wiki/William_J._Brennan
mw-redirect
William J. Brennan

values:
/wiki/John_Arthur_Spenkelink
mw-redirect
John Arthur Spenkelink

values: Felony murder and the death penalty in the United States

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/40041708

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 433

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 446

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 462

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 492

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 532

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 542

values: Template talk:US8thAmendment (page does not exist)

values: Graham v. West Virginia (page does not exist)

values: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-subgroup

values:
/wiki/Excessive_Fines_Clause
mw-redirect
Excessive Fines Clause

values: Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (page does not exist)

values: nowraplinks collapsible uncollapsed navbox-inner

values: Category:Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and death penalty case law

values: Category:Capital punishment in Georgia (U.S. state)

values: Category:Legal history of Georgia (U.S. state)

values: Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court

values: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Gregg_v._Georgia
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Gregg_v_Georgia rootpage-Gregg_v_Georgia skin-vector action-view