cence determined at the first stage, penalty assessed at second stage with discussion of mitigating or extenuating circumstances and standards on applying them, automatic sentence review - made the application of capital punishment more even-handed, according to the Gregg court.While it agreed with the Furman court that societal acceptance of capital punishment was an important principal, the Gregg court disputed the Furman courts findings that contemporary society rejected capital punishment. The Gregg court showed historical evidence that capital punishment was accepted by the Framers of the Constitution and by the Supreme Court itself, based in nearly two centuries of precedent. The Gregg court flatly rejected the Furman courts indication that legislative measures do not represent societys acceptance of capital punishment; according to the Gregg court, measures adopted by the people's chosen representatives weigh heavily in ascertaining contemporary standards. Specifically, the Gregg court referenced new statutes enacted by Congress and at least 35 states in the four years after the Furman decision as important evidence of wide popular appeal for the death penalty. Finally, the Gregg court pointed out that infrequent application of the death penalty does not indicate rejection, rather, it shows the prevailing sentiment that capital punishment be reserved for the most heinous of crimes.While the Gregg court agreed with the Furman court that a legislature should not be allowed to impose excessive punishment - excessive meaning that a punishment involves unnecessary infliction of pain, or is disproportionate to the crime - the Gregg court reasoned that a legislature is not required to select the least severe penalty possible. As opposed to the Furman court, the Gregg court found that state killing of a murderer was not disproportionate to the crime of murder. Given a focused and evenhanded application, societal acceptance of capit...
