Talk:Coker 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.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[murder#Degrees of murder in the United States|first degree murder]] The anchor (#Degrees of murder in the United States) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Other proportionality arguments.

I've deleted the following text from a recent revision of the article:

Like other arguments based on proportionality, the argument against execution for rape can be justified by an appeal to perverse incentive, in that a criminal who believes that he or she will be executed for a rape would have an incentive to murder their victim (which would not make the punishment any worse) rather than allow the victim to live, since the victim's testimony increases their chance of being arrested and convicted.

I don't disagree with this statement. However, I don't think it belongs in a discussion of the Court's decision. The Court's proportionality analysis has to have some relationship to what is "cruel and unusual." The Court does not make law based on philosophical argument; rather, it defines the outer boundaries of legislative power with reference to a written constitution, in this case the text of the Eighth Amendment. It cannot incorporate arguments, such as this philosophical argument, that have too attenuated a connection to that text.

I have added this text to the capital punishment debate article. ---Axios023 04:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that reasoning was mentioned in Kennedy v. Louisiana, and doesn't seem to be dicta. In determining the reach of the Eighth Amendment, I think the court has adopted the approach that it is appropriate to consider, among other things, the classical punishment rationales of deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retribution. This argument is relevant under deterrence (of a more serious crime), though if this argument wasn't mentioned in the opinion or commentary, I agree its inclusion is inappropriate.24.5.194.110 (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of what the court will consider in the eighth amendment context as relates to the death penalty is how society generally views the death penalty. The most distinguishing case marking the beginning of the shift of public sentiment in death penalty jurisprudence is Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) which effectively vacated the death penalty in two rape cases and one murder cases, and was somewhat of a major political issue at the time, such that Coker and later cases are certainly no surprise. 72.210.102.55 (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Coker v. Georgia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051212144752/http://www.burkfoster.com:80/StruckbyLightning.htm to http://burkfoster.com/StruckbyLightning.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of 'Solid South' reference

We currently have the following in the article:

"(At that time, the states of the former Confederacy had a Democratic Party block in Congress known as the Solid South that was very powerful; those states had disenfranchised most black residents at the turn of the century and continued to exclude them from politics.)"

While I can see that it implies some context, the specific relevance to the case is not at all clear. I've therefore cut it out. Barnabypage (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]