McGautha v California Concurrent Opinion
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1971

2 pages
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. McGautha v California Concurrent Opinion, 1971. 66155a59-bc9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/104a45ea-b513-4e4f-a76d-5eefffc34c68/mcgautha-v-california-concurrent-opinion. Accessed April 19, 2025.
Copied!
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Nos. 20.3 <fc 204.— October T erm, 1970 Dennis Councle McGautha, Petitioner, 203 v. State of California. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Cali fornia. James Edward Crampton, Petitioner, 204 v. State of Ohio. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio. [May 3, 1971] M r. Justice Black, concurring. I concur in the Court’s judgments and in substantially all of its opinion. However, in my view, this Court's task is not to determine whether the petitioners’ trials were “ fairly conducted.” Ante, at 37. The Constitu tion grants this Court no power to reverse convictions because of our personal beliefs that state criminal pro cedures are “unfair,” “arbitrary,” “capricious,” “ unrea sonable,” or “ shocking to our conscience.” See, c. g., Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165, 174 (1952) (B lack. J.. concurring); United States v. Wade, 3S8 U. S. 218. 243 (1967) (B lack, J., dissenting and concurring). Our responsibility is rather to determine whether petitioners have been denied rights expressly or impliedly guaran teed by the Federal Constitution as written. I agree with the Court’s conclusions that the procedures em ployed by California and Ohio to determine whether capital punishment shall be imposed do not offend the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Likewise, I do not believe that petitioners have been deprived of any other right explicitly or impliedly guar- 203 <fc 204— CONCUR McGAUTHA v . CALIFORNIA anteed by the other provisions of the Bill of Rights. The Eighth Amendment forbids “cruel and unusual punishments.’ ’ In my view, these words cannot be read to outlaw capital punishment because that penalty was in common use and authorized by law here and in the countries from which our ancestors came at the time the Amendment was adopted. It is inconceivable to me that the Framers intended to end capital punishment by the Amendment. Although some people have urged that this Court should amend the Constitution by inter pretation to keep it abreast of modern ideas. I have never believed that lifetime judges in our system have any such legislative power. See Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U. S. 063. 670 (1966) ( B lack. J., dissenting).