Final answer:
The constitutionality of a statute mandating the death sentence depends on whether it aligns with Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishments, as demonstrated by Supreme Court cases such as Jurek v. Texas and Gregg v. Georgia.
Step-by-step explanation:
Is a statute constitutional when it mandates a death sentence? The constitutionality of death penalty statutes has been a subject of significant legal debate and has led to a number of landmark Supreme Court decisions. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, and under this provision, the constitutionality of a law prescribing the death penalty depends on whether it respects the individual's rights and follows the established legal guidelines for such sentences.
Cases such as Jurek v. Texas upheld the constitutionality of the Texas death penalty statute because it employed a three-part test to determine if a death sentence should be imposed, emphasizing individualized sentencing. Conversely, in the Roberts v. Louisiana decision, the statute was found unconstitutional as it instituted a mandatory death penalty without consideration of the individual circumstances. Similarly, Woodson v. North Carolina demonstrated unconstitutional grounds due to the mandatory nature of its sentence.
Crucial to the ruling in Gregg v. Georgia was the fact that the statute adequately narrowed the defendants eligible for the death penalty, suggesting that careful sorting is essential for such statutes to be constitutional. Furthermore, as per Kennedy v. Louisiana, the death penalty is unconstitutional for crimes not involving murder or crimes against the state. This reflects the Court's efforts to balance the need for retribution and deterrence with the imperative of fair and non-arbitrary application of the death penalty.