Talk:Gregg v. Georgia

U.S. Supreme Court cases High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Talk start

from the article: but because the system by which it was being applied at the time was not "arbitrary and capricious.", the "not" shouldn't be there, surely? Notjim 14:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - I just re-checked the text of the majority opinion, and the "not" was not in the text. Someone'd alreay fixed this, but just thought I should mention it...--Tim4christ17 10:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Huan?

Call me ignorant, but I have no idea why it was referred to as Daniel Huan v. Georgia in the first sentence of this article. The google search of 'Daniel Huan v. Georgia' resulted in just this wikipedia article. Was it mere vandalism?

Re-editing

I'm consolidating the entries for the five cases reauthorizing the death penalty in the United States -- Gregg, Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana, into one large entry here. Please bear with me; it'll take a while. Axios023 03:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did the court consolidate these cases? Why are you combining their articles? Otherwise, if you're going to merge articles, you should really put a "merge" tag up and wait for a concensus... (and put a note at WP:SCOTUS about it.)--Tim4christ17 04:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last non-redirect version of the Woodston v. North Carolina article

The Court did not formally consolidate these cases, as it sometimes does when two or more cases presenting the same legal issue arise at the same time. I thought it was appropriate to merge the entries for these cases into one article because (1) lawyers and judges who work in the field think of them as a unit and (2) by analyzing them together, the basic holding of the Court becomes clearer. Also, the articles for Proffitt, Jurek, and Roberts did not exist until I created them.

Thank you for reposting the old version of the Woodson article. ---Axios023 05:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explaination - you've removed any concerns I had about the merger. :) --Tim4christ17 06:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The text under the subheadings "Georgia," "Florida," and "Texas" are placeholders; they use jargon in the field without explanation ("weighing" versus "non-weighing," some of the most confusing legal terms I've ever run across); and the little bit underneath about appellate review will be expanded. ---Axios023 06:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Next up -- discussion of appellate review, and entries for the two death penalty schemes the Court struck down, North Carolina and Louisiana. Later on, I'll add more discussions about the counterarguments the Court discussed. ---Axios023 05:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Finished the discussion of the majority holding in the five cases. I added a paragraph at the beginning explaining why the article doesn't discuss the facts of the crimes in as much detail as most of the other articles do. I don't prefer to write articles about criminal cases without discussing pertinent facts. These cases are different -- they explain why the process we have for imposing the death penalty in the United States is the way it is. Other than the fact that each defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, the facts of the crime make no difference in the legal analysis. There are those that criticize the decisions for the weakness of the legal reasoning, but most legal scholars and lawyers recognize that these cases are about capital sentencing procedure, not the brutality of crime. ---Axios023 05:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine in a legal journal, but I think in an encyclopedia, readers have a reasonable expectation that these articles will say at least something about the underlying facts. Maybe this article should remain as is, with a different title, but with links to the individual cases, which should be un-merged. Then the articles on the individual cases could report the underlying facts separately. --Trovatore 05:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Added views of Justices whose views did not command a majority of the Court. ---Axios023 07:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need descriptions of crimes, links to principals

It seems to me that one of the most obvious things missing from this article is a description of the facts of the case(s) and links to articles about the perps/plaintiffs. There's a Troy Leon Gregg article that I think should be prominently linked, but I can't see a natural place to work in his name in the current text. --Trovatore 03:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Joined with"

The cases were not formally "joined" in the sense that the Court issued one opinion to resolve the claims presented in all five cases. Because the cases involved five different statutory schemes, the Court issued five distinct, although overlapping, opinions. That's why I deleted the "joined with" that appeared in the prior version of the first paragraph. ---Axios023 04:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for a history project

1. Who was involved in this case? 2. Why did this case come about? 3. What does this case establish? 4. In the case, is there any precedent involved (are any other casees refrenced that happened before)? 5. Are there any constitutional amendements that the case can be attached to?

any help is much appreciated, Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.9.189 (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question about wording in introduction

In the introduction, the case is described as having "…set forth the two main features that capital sentencing procedures must employ in order to comport (i.e. comply) with the Eighth Amendment…". 'comport' is a highly uncommon word, to such an extent that somebody has considered it necessary to link it to the wiktionary definition and provide an explanation in brackets immediately afterwards. It doesn't appear to be a quotation, and a far more common word expressing the same thing not only exists, but is already provided. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply say 'comply' in the first place? 78.49.58.126 (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agree with you. But somehow I feel like there's a better, third word, on the tip of my tongue, that I can't quite come up with. No objection to your changing it to "comply" in the mean time. --Trovatore (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gregg v. Georgia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421124552/http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions.php to http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction case names

The case names in the introduction appear to have been... stylized. 2604:CB00:5AC:2B00:90B5:FBC8:B621:D833 (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]