Jurek v. Texas

Lastly, the Court considered the requirements of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Eighth Amendment states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted," while the Fourteenth Amendment essentially guarantees an individual's rights to due process and equal protection under the law. In order for a capital-sentence ruling to be constitutional a jury must consider the case based not only on evidence showing why a death sentence should be imposed, but also on the factors surrounding why it should not be imposed. In other words, mitigating circumstances must be considered. The Texas statute only directed jurors to answer three questions. Did these required questions allow consideration of the mitigating circumstances during the sentencing of Jurek?

In determining this, the Supreme Court focused primarily on the question concerning the petitioner's potential danger to society. It was noted that the jury in this case had to consider various factors concerning Jurek, such as his age, his emotional state-of-mind, and his past conduct. These observations were presented not only by the prosecutor, but also by the defense.

The Supreme Court concluded that Texas' capital-sentencing structure did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. This decision was reached due to the narrowing of the definition of capital murder, requiring at least one statutory aggravating circumstance of five be present before a death sentence can be considered. By allowing the defense to provide testimony as to why the death penalty should not be invoked during the separate sentencing hearing, the Court felt that mitigating circumstances concerning the defendant were brought to light, thus providing the jury with an acceptable amount of guidance to enable accurate sentencing. The substantive crime of murder was defined in a precise enough manner under Texas' revised statute so that the issues presented in Furman v. Georgia, Branch v. Texas, and Jackson v. Georgia did not come to bear.