Publication Date
12-31-2025
Abstract
This article revisits the core argument against the death penalty that Professor Anthony Amsterdam offered in Furman v. Georgia. The article situates itself, however, in a modern, forward-facing context by accounting for post-Furman death penalty developments. These include the thirteen federal executions during the last six months of President Trump’s first term, the thirty-seven commutations of federal death sentences by President Biden, and the executive order by President Trump, issued on the first day of his second term, directing vigorous use of the federal death penalty and aid and encouragement in the use of capital punishment by the states.
In Furman, Professor Amsterdam presented an evocative justification for death-penalty abolition. His core theme moved five Justices to reject standardless death sentencing, although the Court did not declare capital punishment altogether unconstitutional. Amsterdam’s central point was this: If the death penalty had to be administered even-handedly and regularly for the crimes for which it was authorized, the public would have abandoned it. This article asks whether the argument can survive the second Trump presidency and justify the Court in declaring capital punishment largely or entirely unconstitutional. The article answers affirmatively. The Furman claim will continue to haunt the existence of the death penalty as states and the federal government apply it.
Recommended Citation
Howe, Scott W.
(2025)
"The Future of the Furman Challenge to the Death Penalty,"
Georgia Law Review: Vol. 60:
No.
1, Article 3.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/glr/vol60/iss1/3