In the case of Enmund v. Florida, Earl Enmund was convicted for his role in a robbery that resulted in murder. Although he did not directly participate in the killings, under Florida law at the time, accomplices to a felony could be held equally responsible for any resulting crimes. Consequently, Enmund was sentenced to death. However, this decision was appealed on grounds that it violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment as well as Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause because he had not killed or intended to kill anyone himself. The U.S Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Enmund stating that imposing capital punishment on someone who neither took life nor attempted or intended to take life is disproportionate and violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. The court emphasized proportionality between crime committed and penalty imposed while considering individual culpability rather than focusing solely on categorization of crime.

In the dissenting opinion for Enmund v. Florida, Justice O'Connor argued that the Eighth Amendment should not be interpreted to prohibit all capital punishment for felony murderers who did not themselves kill, attempt to kill, or intend a killing. She contended that such an interpretation was inconsistent with historical practices and recent legislative judgments in many states. The justice believed it was inappropriate for the court to substitute its own judgment on this matter over those of state legislatures and juries which have deemed death an appropriate penalty under certain circumstances even if there is no intent to kill by the defendant. Furthermore, she disagreed with majority's reliance on foreign laws as they do not reflect American legal standards or societal values regarding crime and punishment.