In Proffitt v. Florida (1975), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Florida's revised death penalty statute, which was enacted in response to Furman v. Georgia that invalidated many state capital punishment laws for being arbitrary and capricious. The court ruled 6-3 that Florida's new law provided adequate guidance to juries in sentencing by requiring them to weigh specific aggravating and mitigating factors before recommending a sentence of death or life imprisonment without parole. This system, according to the majority opinion, ensured consistency and reduced arbitrariness in imposing capital punishment sentences thereby meeting constitutional standards under the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.

In the dissenting opinion for Proffitt v. Florida, Justice Brennan argued that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. He stated that whether or not a person deserves to die for crimes committed should be irrelevant because it's not about what they deserve but rather how we as a society choose to punish them. The justice also pointed out inconsistencies in sentencing, with some individuals receiving life sentences while others are sentenced to death for similar crimes. This inconsistency further illustrates his point of view that capital punishment is arbitrary and capricious - thus unconstitutional under due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, he contended that there was no evidence proving deterrence value of capital punishment over long-term imprisonment which would make its use unnecessary infliction of pain contrary to Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel punishments.