→ CrazyMarc:美國的死刑被宣告違憲???我真是孤陋寡聞220.137.162.196 01/03 01:46
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)
→ CrazyMarc:所以現在還3X個州保留死刑的規定是???220.137.162.196 01/03 01:52
因為1972年最高法院的判決,558名死囚因而改判死刑以外的徒刑,有疑問嗎?
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) was a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled on the
requirement for a degree of consistency in the application of the death
penalty. The case led to a de facto moratorium on capital punishment
throughout the United States, which came to an end when Gregg v. Georgia
was decided in 1976.
→ CrazyMarc:1976美國最高院裁決恢復死刑，到現在執220.137.162.196 01/03 01:55
→ CrazyMarc:行死刑人數到2005已破千220.137.162.196 01/03 01:56
→ CrazyMarc:2000年還判了7個未成年人死刑220.137.162.196 01/03 02:01
→ CrazyMarc:美國還在玩死刑，有疑問嗎？220.137.162.196 01/03 02:01
關於 Moratorium 的意義可以參考 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moratorium_(law)
這或許可以解釋CrazyMarc提出的疑問：既然都被判違憲了，為什麼美國到現在還是有死
刑。
另外，原Po轉貼的文章中其實已經有指出這個「所謂的」死刑違憲判決的時效性：
which came to an end when Gregg v. Georgia was decided in 1976.
簡單地說，這個 maratorium 只維持到 1976 年。
真的仔細去閱讀Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)就會知道，把這個判決簡單地
解釋為「所有死刑都違憲」可說是顛倒是非，或者有意無意地斷章取義。
看看關鍵的說明（最關鍵部份上色）
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furman_v._Georgia
（節錄）
In a 5-4 decision, the Court's one-page per curiam opinion held
that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases
constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the
Constitution. Each of the justices filed their own concurrence or
dissent; none were able to gather more than three other justices
to support them. Only Justices Brennan and Marshall believed the
death penalty to be unconstitutional in all instances. Other
concurrences focused on the arbitrary nature with which death
sentences have been imposed, often indicating a racial bias
against black defendants. The Court's decision forced states and
the national legislature to rethink their statutes for capital
offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be
administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner.[2]
簡單地說，5-4的多數大法官認為在Furman v. Georgia、Jackson v. Georgia等這幾個案
件中死刑違憲，認為所有的死刑都違憲的只有Brennan和Marshall這兩位。
這還不足以形成美國大法官會議的多數。
其實這個判例最主要的影響不在廢死，而在改善美國種族不平等問題：過去（或許現在也
是）美國黑人即使犯了同樣的罪，被判死刑的機率遠高於白人。由於偏離了主題，就不多
談，大家有興趣自己去看。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 140.123.185.72
推 valepiy:推 114.36.56.115 01/03 12:48
推 a96932000:不過現在就是少數>多數啊(攤 140.123.110.86 01/03 13:46
→ a96932000:你看許大法官認為違憲->台灣該廢死 140.123.110.86 01/03 13:46
→ hifree:Moratorium????小學生大概不知道 59.120.39.93 01/30 16:34
→ hifree:Controle diffus,不知道分散式審查制度法院 59.120.39.93 01/30 16:36
→ hifree:根本沒有宣告法律無效的權力~~~ 59.120.39.93 01/30 16:36