In the case of Pulley, Warden v. Harris in 1983, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that California's death penalty statute did not violate the Eighth Amendment by failing to require comparative proportionality review - a process where courts compare sentences in similar cases to ensure consistency and fairness. The respondent Robert Alton Harris had been convicted for murder and sentenced to death under this law. He argued that without such a review, there was an increased risk of arbitrary or capricious sentencing which would be unconstitutional. However, the court disagreed with his argument stating that while some states have chosen to implement comparative proportionality reviews as part of their capital punishment systems, it is not constitutionally required.

In the dissenting opinion for Pulley, Warden v. Harris, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's conclusion that California's death penalty system did not require a comparative proportionality review to be constitutional. He argued that such a review was necessary to prevent arbitrary and capricious sentencing in capital cases. Furthermore, he believed that without this safeguard, there was an increased risk of racial or other discriminatory bias influencing sentencing decisions. Additionally, he pointed out inconsistencies in how different states handled proportionality reviews and suggested these disparities could lead to unequal treatment of defendants across state lines - something which goes against principles of fairness and justice inherent in the Constitution.