Furman Vs. Georgia

Furman vs. Georgia

Rachel Lynn

CJS/221

08/31/2015

Stephen Humphries

        Have you ever thought about what would happen to you if you did not get a fair trial?  How long do you think you would be tried for, with a crime that accidently happened?  In the case of Furman vs. Georgia many things have gone wrong when trying Furman in court.   Many things stemmed from the region he was from, his mental status and most of all the color of his skin.  This land mark case shows the prime examples of the violation of his 8th and 14th amendment rights.

In 1972, William Furman was found to have broken into a home in Savannah, Georgia. The owner William Micke discovered Furman in the home and found him carrying a hand gun.  When being found Furman rain from the home and tripped accidently fired the gun when he fell, killing William Micke at the scene.  Furman was tried on in a one day court hearing and found guilty of murder and possibly the death penalty for the murder of Micke.  The issue with the court case was that the attorneys felt like they should have used the death penalty or not.   Attorney’s felts like the 8th amendment which forbids cruel and unusual punishments for crimes was violating Furmans 8th amendment rights.  It was ruled that the death penalty was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and that Furmans 8th and 14th amendment rights were violated.  One way this was violated was when he only had a one day trial and did not have much of protection from local law enforcement.  This was due to him being African American along with his social class and being mentally challenged.  The jurors voted 5 to 4 against him during this one day trial.  This did not give the time for Furman’s attorney to properly defend the man in court under the8th and 14th amendment (Gunthar, Adam).

Not all cases deal with just with racial discrimination it also deals with gender discrimination.  A woman won her case against UPS and the Pregnancy Discrimination act.  Peggy Young worked part-time for UPS as a driver picking up air shipments.  Over 4 years into her position she decided to go in for vitro fertilization.   Her physician instructed that she does not lift any heavy boxes.  Young requested from her supervisor for another position that would be considered as light duty.  Her supervisor informed her that they only offer light duty to any kind of work related accidents or disabilities to whom can no longer drive and not to pregnant woman.  Young was told to go on extended and unpaid leave and along with losing her medical coverage.  She was able to return back to work 2 months after the baby was born.  At first she lost her first 2 rulings and later the courts decided not to accommodate her as gender neutral.   Later after the ruling UPS changed its policy giving temporary light duty to pregnant woman in the work place (Zillman, Claire).   At first I did not know how to feel about this case. But when looking through and hearing her situation I feel that the first initial ruling was not fair to the female workers.  Yes, they should all be treated the same but, when it can cause possibly bodily harm to the female worker I think they should be able to request light duty to care for their unborn child.