Ruling & Legacy

The Ruling

The death sentence was upheld as constitutional; Gregg's death sentence was upheld- the idea that the death sentence was cruel and unusual was settled in this manner. The public, as well, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, also did not believe the death penalty to be cruel and unusual, seeing as juries still decided upon it as a sentence. However, the Supreme Court did place two (rather vague) guidelines for the death sentence; 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, and second, the scheme must allow the sentencer (whether judge or jury) to take into account the character and record of an individual defendant.

Opinion

Majority	Stewart, joined by Powell, Stevens
Concurrence	Rehnquist
Concurrence	White, joined by Burger, Rehnquist
Concurrence	Blackmun
Dissent	Brennan
Dissent	Marshall

Arguments

Gregg argued that such a punishment as the death penalty was cruel and unusual and prohibited through the constitution- while the opposition argued that the death penalty was widely regarded as usable in courts, restricted in range and not excessive; the constrictions placed by the supreme courts also kept the death penalty from going too far.

Legacy

This case has successfully cemented the idea that the death penalty did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments. While Georgia had its own set of standards regarding the carrying out of a death penalty conviction (set by Furman v. Georgia), The Supreme Court did not meddle in those rules, but argued that the death penalty was a deterrent against future crimes that called for capital punishment. In his oral argument Thomas Davis, who argued on the side of the Georgia, pushed forward this idea, placing it in the context of Georgia's legal system. On the opposing side, Hughel Harrison's oral argument was that there was not enough proof to "justify the taking of human life" and that the Constitution protected against such punishment.

The Oral Arguments can be heard in its entirety here:

The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to Gregg limited only to his murder charge, ignoring the armed robbery charge as a part of the conviction. Robert H. Bork, who was solicitor general at the time, argued for the side of the United States as amicus curiae, argued  that the death penalty did not violate the eighth amendment as the original framers had "prescribed the procedures that must be used in inflicting it" in other places in the Constitution, particularly the fifth and fourteenth amendments.

These arguments and the outcome of this case are still upheld today, although it is not without controversy.