Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that the death penalty for rape of an adult was grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment, and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S.

[1] The "evolving standards of decency" test has since been applied in other cases including Atkins v. Virginia (overturning Penry v. Lynaugh) Stanford v. Kentucky, and Roper v.

[3] By 1971, on the eve of the Court's Furman decision, the number of jurisdictions supporting the death penalty for rape of an adult woman had declined to 16 states and the federal government.

While serving several sentences for rape, kidnapping, one count of first degree murder, and aggravated assault, Ehrlich Anthony Coker escaped from prison.

[8] The Court held that a punishment was "excessive in violation of the Eighth Amendment if it[9] (1) makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment and hence is nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering, or (2) is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crimeApplying the second excessiveness standard Justice White found that death was a grossly proportionate punishment for the crime of rape:[9] We have the abiding conviction that the death penalty, which is unique in its severity and irrevocability, is an excessive penalty for the rapist who, as such, does not take human lifeThe court based its substantive analysis on the "evolving standards of decency" discerned from "objective evidence" like state laws and jury sentencing behavior.

"[12] The court ultimately determined that, "Rape is without doubt deserving of serious punishment; but in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public, it does not compare with murder, which does involve the unjustified taking of human life.

He said making the penalty more severe than the criminal act was constitutionally permissible if the legislative purpose was deterrence:[7] "Whatever one's view may be as to the State's constitutional power to impose the death penalty upon a rapist who stands before the court convicted for the first time, this case reveals a chronic rapist whose continuing danger to the community is abundantly clear.

"Burger defended a state's prerogative to impose additional punishment for recidivists, including a death sentence for prisoners who commit crimes.

Congress had enacted an early three-strikes law, and the federal crime of assault on a mail carrier carried a stiffer penalty for a second such offense.

He felt that Furman had injected enough uncertainty into the debate over capital punishment; it was more expedient to allow subsequent legislative developments to evolve.

This was settled in Kennedy v. Louisiana when the Court applied the "evolving standards of decency" analysis to hold that the death penalty was unconstitutional for the brutal rape of an 8 year old girl.

[27] They have also applied "evolving standards of decency" to exclude certain classes of offenders, specifically the young (Roper v. Simmons), insane (Ford v. Wainwright) and intellectually disabled (Atkins v.