Plurality Opinion by Justice Stewart

Justice Potter Stewart, writing for a plurality including Justices Lewis Powell and John Paul Stevens, held that the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of murder does not automatically violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Stewart began by explaining that when capital punishment is under Eighth Amendment, the Court must make a determination based on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Stewart argued that the most marked indication of society’s endorsement of the death penalty was the legislative response to the Court’s ruling in Furman v. Georgia, noting that 35 states enacted new statutes providing for capital punishment in line with the decision.

Stewart stated that for a penalty to be constitutional, it must accord with the “dignity of man”, meaning it can’t involve the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” and can’t be “grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime.” Stewart noted that retribution is an expression of society’s moral outrage at particularly offensive conduct and is essential in an ordered society to prevent vigilante justice. He further explained that while the deterrent value of the death penalty is up for debate, the Court should defer to legislative judgments on the issue.

Regarding the specific procedures in Georgia, Stewart found that the new statutory scheme sufficiently addressed the concerns of arbitrary and wanton application raised in Furman. The new Georgia procedures employed a bifurcated trial in which the jury first determines guilt and then, in a separate hearing, considers aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Stewart argued that by requiring the jury to find at least one of ten statutory aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt, the law narrowed the class of murderers eligible for the death penalty. Stewart also stated that the appellate review process by the Georgia Supreme Court provided an additional safeguard against the capricious imposition of the penalty. He found that the Georgia sentencing procedures focused the jury's attention on the particularized nature of the crime and the characteristics of the individual defendant. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the death sentence, finding that the statutory system did not violate the Constitution, not did the death penalty itself.