Enmund v. Florida - Degree Of Responsibility

However, the dissenting justices believed that the majority's decision interfered with the state criteria for determining guilt, relying too much on intent. They also point out that 23 states allow courts to impose capital punishment even when the accused neither kills or intends to kill the victim. Consequently, they reached a different conclusion than the majority. Contrary to the claim that society largely disapproves of the death penalty for cases such as Enmund's, they found that two-thirds of the states that have the death penalty embrace it as an acceptable and appropriate punishment for accessories to felonies that result in murder.

Furthermore, the dissenting justices argued that the Eighth Amendment calls not only for a ban on cruel and unusual punishment, but also for a sentence proportionate to the harm and damage caused by degree of responsibility of the accused. Since Enmund set the crime in motion by planning it and driving the Armstrongs to the Kersey home, he must accept a greater share of the guilt than he or the Supreme Court majority admitted, according to the dissenting justices.