Final answer:
Albert Camus considered murder and capital punishment equivalent, believing both involve taking life unjustly. His views align with existentialist principles that value the sanctity of human life and reject state-sanctioned violence. Landmark Supreme Court cases have shaped the legalities surrounding the death penalty, reflecting ongoing debates about its morality.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that Albert Camus held that murder and capital punishment are equivalent to one another is true. Camus was an existentialist philosopher who viewed capital punishment as morally equivalent to murder. He believed in the value of human life and saw capital punishment as a form of murder sanctioned by the state. Moreover, in his essay 'Reflections on the Guillotine', Camus made it clear that he saw no difference between the act of murder committed by an individual and the act of execution carried out by the state. He argued that both acts take a life unjustly and that the state should not participate in the cycle of violence by imposing the death penalty.
In terms of the Supreme Court's stance on capital punishment, it has been a controversial issue, with landmark cases like Furman v. Georgia, where it was ruled that inconsistent imposition of the death penalty violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This ruling essentially led to a moratorium on executions until the decision in Gregg v. Georgia, which reinstated the death penalty under certain circumstances.
The complexities surrounding the ethics of capital punishment have been a subject of debate for centuries, with figures like Benjamin Franklin having established the first abolitionist society in America, indicating that disapproval of capital punishment has long-held roots in American history.