text:
After 15 years of reading journals I thought I'd seen every weird eye-catching trick an advertising agent can think up.
But, even I was taken aback by the sheer WTFness of a veterinary drug ad my esteemed colleague Webhill sent me yesterday:
A Blog detailing the insanity of my medical practice and the stupidity of everyday life.
That's the ugliest dog I've ever seen LOL
I'm pretty sure I used to work for that guy.
No, wait, sorry. I'm wrong. That picture looks far friendlier than the ex-stupidvisor.
This drug is obviously going to be marketed off label for hirsutism, ED, metabolic syndrome, obesity and werewolf syndrome. It's a blockbuster, for sure!
I think that's my old asshat colleague I used to work with.
Call me crazy, but I think it works.
Sure, the ad is ludicrious, but it's effective and gets the point across.
activyl for when trans-species genetic mutation is a disruption to your busy lifestyle.
Talk to your doctor if activyl can heel what ails you- today!
I've had patients that looked like that before!!
Gerhard Oechtering, a veterinary professor at Germany's Leipzig University, called for pugs and bulldogs to be banned, saying it's unethical to keep producing members of a breed that can't breathe properly.
Dogs are inbred to get human like faces. There is a movie about it called "Pedigree Dogs Exposed"
Don't you know that fat, unshaven men usually own bulldogs? Same jowls too... They do say that people resemble their pets....
They say that dogs and their owners start to look alike after a while.
"Hey, honey, can we try it doggy-style tonight?"
i hate that pic!!!!!
I own a Basset Hound, and used to get irritated at the "dogs and owners look alike" thing until one day I was working and was hot. My hair has gotten so long that the only way to pull it up and keep it off my neck was to pull it up in Maryanne pigtails (Gilligan's Island, not little girl pigtails). I caught a glimpse of myself and realized that my hair up like that looked just like my dog's ears. Next dog will be a Papillion or Pomeranian.
I wish I was as beautiful as my collie! That picture really IS disturbing.
Was there animal, er I mean human, testing done? Oh wait, which market are we protecting? Wonder if "it" has opposable thumbs?
I hate the idea of breeding dogs with built in problems....miniaturizing everything...also, cutting off or making short legs like daschunds, bassetts, these dogs have bad back problems... brachicephalic crap like the pugs and pekinese who can't breethe (is that really a dog or just something to shove a handle in and make into a mop). Bulldogs can't even reproduce on their own their heads are so oversized...
They are making big saucer eyes, and basically breeding in the "cuteness" triggers that simulate human babies. That is what small dogs are to most folks... substitute babies for those women that need to be needed... I'll stop now...
I just wish they would quit breeding in deformities on purpose.
Sorry, Southgeek, but some of us have dogs because we like animals, not because they substitute for babies. I, personally, can't stand babies--or teens or adults for that matter.
I think fleas are the least of the health issues the dog has. Always looks good to use a dog with an obvious eye (or other) problem.
Any breed with the word :Toy in it... Not a dog, stand in baby.
Finally, I can stop having to shave my pubic hair...
Eeew, I hate those pictures where they mix people with animals. Disturbing to see.
At last, flea control for Wilfred!
Meet Dr Jekyll...and Mr Hyde.
I can't stop looking, I can't stop looking...
I am pretty sure thats one of my customers...
Yeah, WTF. And damnit Moose, that spoon hanging from your nose freaks me out every time I see it.
Real men shave everyday and they don't sniff butt.
I LOVE that one. :)
I don't think the ad works. I don't get it, and the vision is too ugly and disturbing for me to want to pursue the topic. What do flees and a particular breed of animal have anything to do with each other is beyond me. I think it must be trying to capture a cliche or a prejudice and I obviously do not associate fleas with anything other than unprotected animals.
it is summer.
that means mites, fleas, maggots, ticks, lice on lots of folks in the urgent care/walk in clinic - coming in to be seen on two legs ,or what is left of them.
de-licer spray stuff would be great some days.
People like Hildy are the reason I quit veterinary practice and retrained to be Anything But A Veterinarian. Misanthropes who keep animals because they can't get along with their own species - ugh!


text:
Limus means mud in Latin, which is exactly where this tire dominates. Deep, aggressive, and well-spaced knobs cut through muddy conditions so you can flow through corners, zip through off-camber sections, and powering up inclines with ease. A great tire for truly extreme conditions like the 2018 CX World Championships where it won four of five gold medals. This handmade tubular combines a supple, 320TPI sealed corespun cotton casing with natural rubber tread and a seamless latex inner tube for improved grip at lower pressures, confident cornering, and quick handing. The latex tube is lighter, thinner, and more flexible than a butyl tube, increasing your comfort, lowering your rolling resistance, and helping to prevent flats. The tube also includes a removable core Presta valve.
- Handmade tires combine many attributes to create the most comfortable and lowest rolling resistance tires.
Sealed Corespun Cotton
- To protect our cotton casings, we apply a special waterproof, bead-to-bead coating. This treatment keeps the casing lighter, softer, and more supple, extending the tire's life and brightness.
- The S stands for Softer and more Supple. This tire utilizes a softer durometer tread rubber especially valuable on track and cyclocross tires.
- Latex tubes are stronger, lighter, super supple, absorb shock, and conform precisely to terrain, reducing rolling resistance.
- The Puncture Protection Strip is a special fabric placed between a tire's tread and casing to increase resistance to punctures.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Want to see more details?
Let the host know!
Fully Fenced
Gaps or holes in fence: No gaps
Short grass
50% off all dogs after the 1st dog
25% off hourly price for 30 min visit
Sniffpass holders get discounts on all bookings at all spots by buying monthly credits!
This spot offers additional discounts.
Riverdale, Georgia
Dogs must be leashed when entering and exiting the spot. | |
Make sure the area is safe and secure before bringing your dog in. | |
Never enter a spot before your booking start time and never leave late. | |
Pick up after your dogs. Leave the spot as it was when you arrived. | |
Always review and abide by spot specific rules. | |
Unless otherwise stated, restrooms are not available on site. |
Joined in January 2023
Book this spot!


text:
Custom printed promotional stress balls are a classic stress reliever tool, and also promotional tool. Promotional stress balls are one of the first custom promotional products on the market, and are used by everyone. At IASpromotes.com, our custom printed stress balls are guaranteed to ease your clients' and colleagues' tension while increasing your brand awareness. Promotional stress balls are one of the best items to use as giveaways at trade shows and other marketing events since both adults and kids can enjoy squeezing them.
We have many different styles and colors of custom stress balls that you can easily personalize with your imprinted company name and corporate logo. If you need help coming up with an eye catching design, our sales representatives are on call to assist 24/7!


text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
While serving various sentences for murder, rape, kidnaping, and aggravated assault, petitioner escaped from a Georgia prison and, in the course of committing an armed robbery and other offenses, raped an adult woman. He was convicted of rape, armed robbery, and the other offenses and sentenced to death on the rape charge, when the jury found two of the aggravating circumstances present for imposing such a sentence, viz., that the rape was committed (1) by a person with prior capital-felony convictions and (2) in the course of committing another capital felony, armed robbery. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed both the conviction and sentence. Held: The judgment upholding the death sentence is reversed and the case is remanded. Pp. 591-600; 600; 600-601; 601.
234 Ga. 555, 216 S. E. 2d 782, reversed and remanded.
David E. Kendall argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were E. Kontz Bennett, Jr., Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, Peggy C. Davis, and Anthony G. Amsterdam. [433 U.S. 584, 586]
B. Dean Grindle, Jr., Assistant Attorney General of Georgia, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Robert S. Stubbs II, Executive Assistant Attorney General, Richard L. Chambers, First Assistant Attorney General, John C. Walden, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Harrison Kohler, Assistant Attorney General, and Dewey Hayes. *
[ Footnote * ] Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Melvin L. Wulf, Marjorie Mazen Smith, and Nancy Stearns filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE announced the judgment of the Court and filed an opinion in which MR. JUSTICE STEWART, MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and MR. JUSTICE STEVENS, joined.
Georgia Code Ann. 26-2001 (1972) provides that "[a] person convicted of rape shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life, or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years." 1 Punishment is determined by a jury in a separate sentencing proceeding in which at least one of the statutory aggravating circumstances must be found before the death penalty may be imposed. 2 Petitioner Coker was convicted of rape and sentenced to death. Both the conviction and the sentence were affirmed by the Georgia Supreme Court. Coker was granted a writ of certiorari, 429 U.S. 815 , limited to the single claim, rejected by the Georgia court, that the punishment of death for rape violates the Eighth Amendment, which proscribes "cruel and unusual punishments" and which must be observed by the States as well as the Federal Government. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). [433 U.S. 584, 587]
While serving various sentences for murder, rape, kidnaping, and aggravated assault, petitioner escaped from the Ware Correctional Institution near Waycross, Ga., on September 2, 1974. At approximately 11 o'clock that night, petitioner entered the house of Allen and Elnita Carver through an unlocked kitchen door. Threatening the couple with a "board," he tied up Mr. Carver in the bathroom, obtained a knife from the kitchen, and took Mr. Carver's money and the keys to the family car. Brandishing the knife and saying "you know what's going to happen to you if you try anything, don't you," Coker then raped Mrs. Carver. Soon thereafter, petitioner drove away in the Carver car, taking Mrs. Carver with him. Mr. Carver, freeing himself, notified the police; and not long thereafter petitioner was apprehended. Mrs. Carver was unharmed.
Petitioner was charged with escape, armed robbery, motor vehicle theft, kidnaping, and rape. Counsel was appointed to represent him. Having been found competent to stand trial, he was tried. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, rejecting his general plea of insanity. A sentencing hearing was then conducted in accordance with the procedures dealt with at length in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), where this Court sustained the death penalty for murder when imposed pursuant to the statutory procedures. 3 The jury was [433 U.S. 584, 588] instructed that it could consider as aggravating circumstances whether the rape had been committed by a person with a prior record of conviction for a capital felony and whether the rape [433 U.S. 584, 589] had been committed in the course of committing another capital felony, namely, the armed robbery of Allen Carver. The court also instructed, pursuant to statute, that even if [433 U.S. 584, 590] aggravating circumstances were present, the death penalty need not be imposed if the jury found they were outweighed by mitigating circumstances, that is, circumstances not constituting justification or excuse for the offense in question, [433 U.S. 584, 591] "but which, in fairness and mercy, may be considered as extenuating or reducing the degree" of moral culpability or punishment. App. 300. The jury's verdict on the rape count was death by electrocution. Both aggravating circumstances on which the court instructed were found to be present by the jury.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), and the Court's decisions last Term in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976); Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976); Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976); and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976), make unnecessary the recanvassing of certain critical aspects of the controversy about the constitutionality of capital punishment. It is now settled that the death penalty is not invariably cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment; it is not inherently barbaric or an unacceptable mode of punishment for crime; neither is it always disproportionate to the crime for which it is imposed. It is also established that imposing capital punishment, at least for murder, in accordance with the procedures provided under the Georgia statutes saves the sentence from the infirmities which led the Court to invalidate the prior Georgia capital punishment statute in Furman v. Georgia, supra.
In sustaining the imposition of the death penalty in Gregg, [433 U.S. 584, 592] however, the Court firmly embraced the holdings and dicta from prior cases, Furman v. Georgia, supra; Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958); and Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910), to the effect that the Eighth Amendment bars not only those punishments that are "barbaric" but also those that are "excessive" in relation to the crime committed. Under Gregg, a punishment is "excessive" and unconstitutional if it (1) makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment and hence is nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering; or (2) is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime. A punishment might fail the test on either ground. Furthermore, these Eighth Amendment judgments should not be, or appear to be, merely the subjective views of individual Justices; judgment should be informed by objective factors to the maximum possible extent. To this end, attention must be given to the public attitudes concerning a particular sentence - history and precedent, legislative attitudes, and the response of juries reflected in their sentencing decisions are to be consulted. In Gregg, after giving due regard to such sources, the Court's judgment was that the death penalty for deliberate murder was neither the purposeless imposition of severe punishment nor a punishment grossly disproportionate to the crime. But the Court reserved the question of the constitutionality of the death penalty when imposed for other crimes. 428 U.S., at 187 n. 35.
That question, with respect to rape of an adult woman, is now before us. We have concluded that a sentence of death is grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment for the crime of rape and is therefore forbidden by the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment. 4 [433 U.S. 584, 593]
As advised by recent cases, we seek guidance in history and from the objective evidence of the country's present judgment concerning the acceptability of death as a penalty for rape of an adult woman. At no time in the last 50 years have a majority of the States authorized death as a punishment for rape. In 1925, 18 States, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government authorized capital punishment for the rape of an adult female. 5 By 1971 just prior to the decision in Furman v. Georgia, that number had declined, but not substantially, to 16 States plus the Federal Government. 6 Furman then invalidated most of the capital punishment statutes in this country, including the rape statutes, because, among other reasons, of the manner in which the death penalty was imposed and utilized under those laws.
With their death penalty statutes for the most part invalidated, the States were faced with the choice of enacting modified capital punishment laws in an attempt to satisfy the requirements of Furman or of being satisfied with life imprisonment as the ultimate punishment for any offense. Thirty-five [433 U.S. 584, 594] States immediately reinstituted the death penalty for at least limited kinds of crime. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S., at 179 n. 23. This public judgment as to the acceptability of capital punishment, evidenced by the immediate, post-Furman legislative reaction in a large majority of the States, heavily influenced the Court to sustain the death penalty for murder in Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 179-182.
But if the "most marked indication of society's endorsement of the death penalty for murder is the legislative response to Furman," Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 179-180, it should also be a telling datum that the public judgment with respect to rape, as reflected in the statutes providing the punishment for that crime, has been dramatically different. In reviving death penalty laws to satisfy Furman's mandate, none of the States that had not previously authorized death for rape chose to include rape among capital felonies. Of the 16 States in which rape had been a capital offense, only three provided the death penalty for rape of an adult woman in their revised statutes - Georgia, North Carolina, and Louisiana. In the latter two States, the death penalty was mandatory for those found guilty, and those laws were invalidated by Woodson and Roberts. When Louisiana and North Carolina, responding to those decisions, again revised their capital punishment laws, they re-enacted the death penalty for murder but not for rape; none of the seven other legislatures that to our knowledge have amended or replaced their death penalty statutes since July 2, 1976, including four States (in addition to Louisiana and North Carolina) that had authorized the death sentence for rape prior to 1972 and had reacted to Furman with mandatory statutes, included rape among the crimes for which death was an authorized punishment. 7 [433 U.S. 584, 595]
Georgia argues that 11 of the 16 States that authorized death for rape in 1972 attempted to comply with Furman by enacting arguably mandatory death penalty legislation and that it is very likely that, aside from Louisiana and North Carolina, these States simply chose to eliminate rape as a capital offense rather than to require death for each and every instance of rape. 8 The argument is not without force; but 4 of the 16 States did not take the mandatory course and also did not continue rape of an adult woman as a capital offense. Further, as we have indicated, the legislatures of 6 of the 11 arguably mandatory States have revised their death penalty laws since Woodson and Roberts without enacting a new death penalty for rape. And this is to say nothing of 19 other States that enacted nonmandatory, post-Furman statutes and chose not to sentence rapists to death.
It should be noted that Florida, Mississippi, and Tennessee also authorized the death penalty in some rape cases, but only where the victim was a child and the rapist an adult. 9 The Tennessee statute has since been invalidated because the death sentence was mandatory. Collins v. State, 550 S. W. 2d 643 (Tenn. 1977). The upshot is that Georgia is the sole jurisdiction [433 U.S. 584, 596] in the United States at the present time that authorizes a sentence of death when the rape victim is an adult woman, and only two other jurisdictions provide capital punishment when the victim is a child.
The current judgment with respect to the death penalty for rape is not wholly unanimous among state legislatures, but it obviously weighs very heavily on the side of rejecting capital punishment as a suitable penalty for raping an adult woman. 10
It was also observed in Gregg that "[t]he jury . . . is a significant and reliable objective index of contemporary values because it is so directly involved," 428 U.S., at 181 , and that it is thus important to look to the sentencing decisions that juries have made in the course of assessing whether capital punishment is an appropriate penalty for the crime being tried. Of course, the jury's judgment is meaningful only where the jury has an appropriate measure of choice as to whether the death penalty is to be imposed. As far as execution for rape is concerned, this is now true only in Georgia and in Florida; and in the latter State, capital punishment is authorized only for the rape of children.
According to the factual submissions in this Court, out of all rape convictions in Georgia since 1973 - and that total number has not been tendered - 63 cases had been reviewed by the Georgia Supreme Court as of the time of oral argument; and of these, 6 involved a death sentence, 1 of which was set aside, leaving 5 convicted rapists now under sentence [433 U.S. 584, 597] of death in the State of Georgia. Georgia juries have thus sentenced rapists to death six times since 1973. This obviously is not a negligible number; and the State argues that as a practical matter juries simply reserve the extreme sanction for extreme cases of rape and that recent experience surely does not prove that jurors consider the death penalty to be a disproportionate punishment for every conceivable instance of rape, no matter how aggravated. Nevertheless, it is true that in the vast majority of cases, at least 9 out of 10, juries have not imposed the death sentence.
These recent events evidencing the attitude of state legislatures and sentencing juries do not wholly determine this controversy, for the Constitution contemplates that in the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment. Nevertheless, the legislative rejection of capital punishment for rape strongly confirms our own judgment, which is that death is indeed a disproportionate penalty for the crime of raping an adult woman.
We do not discount the seriousness of rape as a crime. It is highly reprehensible, both in a moral sense and in its almost total contempt for the personal integrity and autonomy of the female victim and for the latter's privilege of choosing those with whom intimate relationships are to be established. Short of homicide, it is the "ultimate violation of self." 11 It is also a violent crime because it normally involves force, or the threat of force or intimidation, to overcome the will and the capacity of the victim to resist. Rape is very often accompanied [433 U.S. 584, 598] by physical injury to the female and can also inflict mental and psychological damage. 12 Because it undermines the community's sense of security, there is public injury as well.
Rape is without doubt deserving of serious punishment; but in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public, it does not compare with murder, which does involve the unjustified taking of human life. Although it may be accompanied by another crime, rape by definition does not include the death of or even the serious injury to another person. 13 The murderer kills; the rapist, if no more than that, does not. Life is over for the victim of the murderer; for the rape victim, life may not be nearly so happy as it was, but it is not over and normally is not beyond repair. We have the abiding conviction that the death penalty, which "is unique in its severity and irrevocability," Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S., at 187 , is an excessive penalty for the rapist who, as such, does not take human life.
This does not end the matter; for under Georgia law, death may not be imposed for any capital offense, including rape, unless the jury or judge finds one of the statutory aggravating circumstances and then elects to impose that sentence. Ga. Code 26-3102 (1977); Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 165-166. For the rapist to be executed in Georgia, it must therefore be found not only that he committed rape but also that one or more of the following aggravating circumstances were present: (1) that the rape was committed by a person with a prior record of conviction for a capital felony; (2) that the rape was committed while the offender was engaged in the commission of another capital felony, or aggravated battery; or (3) the rape "was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or [433 U.S. 584, 599] inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind, or aggravated battery to the victim." 14 Here, the first two of these aggravating circumstances were alleged and found by the jury.
Neither of these circumstances, nor both of them together, change our conclusion that the death sentence imposed on Coker is a disproportionate punishment for rape. Coker had prior convictions for capital felonies - rape, murder, and kidnaping - but these prior convictions do not change the fact that the instant crime being punished is a rape not involving the taking of life.
It is also true that the present rape occurred while Coker was committing armed robbery, a felony for which the Georgia statutes authorize the death penalty. 15 But Coker was tried for the robbery offense as well as for rape and received a separate life sentence for this crime; the jury did not deem the robbery itself deserving of the death penalty, even though accompanied by the aggravating circumstance, which was stipulated, that Coker had been convicted of a prior capital crime. 16 [433 U.S. 584, 600]
We note finally that in Georgia a person commits murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being. He also commits that crime when in the commission of a felony he causes the death of another human being, irrespective of malice. But even where the killing is deliberate, it is not punishable by death absent proof of aggravating circumstances. It is difficult to accept the notion, and we do not, that the rapist, with or without aggravating circumstances, should be punished more heavily than the deliberate killer as long as the rapist does not himself take the life of his victim. The judgment of the Georgia Supreme Court upholding the death sentence is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
[ Footnote 2 ] See n. 3, infra.
[ Footnote 3 ] Ga. Code 26-3102 (1977):
[ Footnote 4 ] Because the death sentence is a disproportionate punishment for rape, it is cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the Eighth [433 U.S. 584, 593] Amendment even though it may measurably serve the legitimate ends of punishment and therefore is not invalid for its failure to do so. We observe that in the light of the legislative decisions in almost all of the States and in most of the countries around the world, it would be difficult to support a claim that the death penalty for rape is an indispensable part of the States' criminal justice system.
[ Footnote 5 ] See Bye, Recent History and Present Status of Capital Punishment in the United States, 17 J. Crim. L. & C. 234, 241-242 (1926).
[ Footnote 6 ] Ala. Code, Tit. 14, 395 (1958); Ark. Stat. Ann. 41-3403 (1964); Fla. Stat. Ann. 794.01 (1965); Ga. Code 26-2001 (1977); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 435.080-435.090 (1962); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 14:42 (1950); Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, 461 (1957); Miss. Code Ann. 2358 (1957); Mo. Rev. Stat. 559.260 (1969); Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.360 (1963) (rape with substantial bodily harm); N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-21 (1969); Okla. Stat. Ann., Tit. 21, 1115 (1958); S. C. Code Ann. 16-72, 16-80 (1962); Tenn. Code Ann. 39-3702 (1955); Tex. Penal Code 1189 (1961); Va. Code Ann. 18.1-44 (1960); 18 U.S.C. 2031.
[ Footnote 7 ] 1976 Okla. Sess. Laws, c. 1, p. 627; 1976 La. Acts, Nos. 657, 694; 1976 Ky. Acts, c. 15 (Ex. Sess.); 1977 Wyo. Sess. Laws, c. 122. Recent legislative action has taken place in North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, California, and New Jersey. The legislation has been signed into law in [433 U.S. 584, 595] North Carolina and Virginia, N.C. Sess. Laws (May 19, 1977); 1977 Va. Acts, c. 492 (Mar. 29, 1977), and has been vetoed in Maryland and California, Washington Post, May 27, 1977, p. A1, col. 1; N. Y. Times, May 28, 1977, p. 8, col. 6. The Governor of New Jersey apparently has not yet acted on the legislation in that State.
[ Footnote 8 ] The legislation that respondent places in this category is as follows:
Ky. Rev. Stat. 507.020 (1975); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 14:30 (1974); Md. Code Ann., Art. 27, 413 (b) (Supp. 1976); Miss. Code Ann. 97-3-19, 97-3-21, 97-25-55, 99-17-20 (Supp. 1975); Mo. Rev. Stat. 559.005, 559.009 (Supp. 1975); Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.030 (1975); N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-17, 14-21 (Supp. 1975); Okla. Stat. Ann., Tit. 21, 701.1-701.3 (Supp. 1975); S. C. Code Ann. 16-52 (Supp. 1975); Tenn. Code Ann. 39-2402, 39-2406, 39-3702 (1975); Va. Code Ann. 18.2-10, 18.2-31 (1975). Brief for Respondent 19 n. 38.
[ Footnote 9 ] Fla. Stat. Ann. 794.011 (2) (1976); Miss. Code Ann. 97-3-65 (Supp. 1976); Tenn. Code Ann. 39-3702 (1974).
[ Footnote 10 ] In Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 102 (1958), the plurality took pains to note the climate of international opinion concerning the acceptability of a particular punishment. It is thus not irrelevant here that out of 60 major nations in the world surveyed in 1965, only 3 retained the death penalty for rape where death did not ensue. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Capital Punishment 40, 86 (1968).
[ Footnote 11 ] U.S. Dept. of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration Report, Rape and Its Victims: A Report for Citizens, Health Facilities, and Criminal Justice Agencies 1 (1975), quoting Bard & Ellison, Crisis Intervention and Investigation of Forcible Rape, The Police Chief (May 1974), reproduced as Appendix I-B to the Report.
[ Footnote 12 ] See Note, The Victim In a Forcible Rape Case; A Feminist View, 11 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 335, 338 (1973); Comment, Rape and Rape Laws: Sexism in Society and Law, 61 Calif. L. Rev. 919, 922-923 (1973).
[ Footnote 13 ] See n. 1, supra, for the Georgia definition of rape.
[ Footnote 14 ] There are other aggravating circumstances provided in the statute, see n. 3, supra, but they are not applicable to rape.
[ Footnote 15 ] In Gregg v. Georgia, the Georgia Supreme Court refused to sustain a death sentence for armed robbery because, for one reason, death had been so seldom imposed for this crime in other cases that such a sentence was excessive and could not be sustained under the statute. As it did in this case, however, the Georgia Supreme Court apparently continues to recognize armed robbery as a capital offense for the purpose of applying the aggravating-circumstances provisions of the Georgia Code.
[ Footnote 16 ] Where the accompanying capital crime is murder, it is most likely that the defendant would be tried for murder, rather than rape; and it is perhaps academic to deal with the death sentence for rape in such a circumstance. It is likewise unnecessary to consider the rape-felony murder - a rape accompanied by the death of the victim which was unlawfully but nonmaliciously caused by the defendant.
Where the third aggravating circumstance mentioned in the text is [433 U.S. 584, 600] present - that the rape is particularly vile or involves torture or aggravated battery - it would seem that the defendant could very likely be convicted, tried, and appropriately punished for this additional conduct.
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, concurring in the judgment.
Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 227 (1976) (dissenting opinion), I concur in the judgment of the Court setting aside the death sentence imposed under the Georgia rape statute.
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, concurring in the judgment.
In Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 231 (1976) (dissenting opinion), I stated: "In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 314 (1972) (concurring opinion), I set forth at some length my views on the basic issue presented to the Court in these cases. The death penalty, I concluded, is a cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. That continues to be my view." [433 U.S. 584, 601]
I then explained in some detail my reasons for reaffirming my position. I continue to adhere to those views in concurring in the judgment of the Court in this case.
MR. JUSTICE POWELL, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the judgment of the Court on the facts of this case, and also in the plurality's reasoning supporting the view that ordinarily death is disproportionate punishment for the crime of raping an adult woman. Although rape invariably is a reprehensible crime, there is no indication that petitioner's offense was committed with excessive brutality or that the victim sustained serious or lasting injury. The plurality, however, does not limit its holding to the case before us or to similar cases. Rather, in an opinion that ranges well beyond what is necessary, it holds that capital punishment always - regardless of the circumstances - is a disproportionate penalty for the crime of rape.
The Georgia statute, sustained in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), specifies aggravating circumstances that may be considered by the jury when appropriate. With respect to the crime of rape, only three such circumstances are specified: (i) the offense was committed by a person with a prior record of conviction for a capital felony; (ii) the offense was committed while the offender was engaged in another capital felony or in aggravated battery; and (iii) the offense was "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind, or an aggravated battery to the victim." Ante, at 588-589, n. 3. Only the third circumstance describes in general the offense of aggravated rape, often identified as a separate and more heinous offense than rape. See, e. g., ALI, Model Penal Code 207.4, Comment, p. 246 (Tent. Draft No. 4, 1955); ALI, Model Penal Code 213.1 (Prop. Off. Draft, 1962); Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.363 (1975). That third circumstance was not submitted [433 U.S. 584, 602] to the jury in this case, as the evidence would not have supported such a finding. It is therefore quite unnecessary for the plurality to write in terms so sweeping as to foreclose each of the 50 state legislatures from creating a narrowly defined substantive crime of aggravated rape punishable by death. 1
In accord with our decisions last Term, the plurality opinion states:
Today, in a case that does not require such an expansive pronouncement, the plurality draws a bright line between murder and all rapes - regardless of the degree of brutality of the rape or the effect upon the victim. I dissent because I am not persuaded that such a bright line is appropriate. As noted in Snider v. Peyton, 356 F.2d 626, 627 (CA4 1966), "[t]here is extreme variation in the degree of culpability of rapists." The deliberate viciousness of the rapist may be greater than that of the murderer. Rape is never an act committed accidentally. Rarely can it be said to be unpremeditated. There also is wide variation in the effect on the victim. The plurality opinion says that "[l]ife is over for the victim of the murderer; for the rape victim, life may not be nearly so happy as it was, but it is not over and normally is not beyond repair." Ante, at 598. But there is indeed "extreme variation" in the crime of rape. Some victims are so grievously injured physically or psychologically that life is beyond repair.
Thus, it may be that the death penalty is not disproportionate punishment for the crime of aggravated rape. Final resolution of the question must await careful inquiry into objective indicators of society's "evolving standards of decency," particularly legislative enactments and the responses of juries in capital cases. 2 See Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 173-182 [433 U.S. 584, 604] (joint opinion of STEWART, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ.); Woodson v. North Carolina, supra, at 294-295 (plurality opinion); Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 436 -443 (1972) (POWELL, J., dissenting). The plurality properly examines these indicia, which do support the conclusion that society finds the death penalty unacceptable for the crime of rape in the absence of excessive brutality or severe injury. But it has not been shown that society finds the penalty disproportionate for all rapes. In a proper case a more discriminating inquiry than the plurality undertakes well might discover that both juries and legislatures have reserved the ultimate penalty for the case of an outrageous rape resulting in serious, lasting harm to the victim. I would not prejudge the issue. To this extent, I respectfully dissent.
[ Footnote 1 ] It is not this Court's function to formulate the relevant criteria that might distinguish aggravated rape from the more usual case, but perhaps a workable test would embrace the factors identified by Georgia: the cruelty or viciousness of the offender, the circumstances and manner in which the offense was committed, and the consequences suffered by the victim. See also Ralph v. Warden, 438 F.2d 786 (CA4 1970), cert. denied, 408 U.S. 942 (1972); 438 F.2d, at 794 (opinion of Haynsworth, C. J.). The legislative task of defining, with appropriate specificity, the elements of the offense of aggravated rape would not be easy, see Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 460 (1972) (POWELL, J., dissenting), but certainly this Court should not assume that the task is impossible.
The dissent of THE CHIEF JUSTICE, relying on selected excerpts from my opinion in Furman, seeks to buttress the view that for sentencing purposes meaningful distinctions cannot be drawn between rapes regardless of the circumstances and effect upon the victim. Post, at 607-608, n. 2. The dissent emphasizes the difficulties of proof. But the jury system is designed and operates successfully to resolve precisely this type of factual issue. The law of negligence, for example, is replete with issues requiring the jury to determine degrees of culpability and the extent or permanency of physical and psychological injury.
I am complimented by the frequency with which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, in his dissent, cites and quotes from my opinion in Furman. That opinion, however, did not prevail, and - as with most of the writing in Furman - it now must be read in light of Gregg and Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976), which have established the controlling general principles. But contrary to implications in THE CHIEF JUSTICE's dissent, my opinion in Furman did emphasize that the proportionality test as to rape should be applied on a case-by-case basis, noting that in some cases the death sentence would be "grossly excessive." 408 U.S., at 461 . I remain [433 U.S. 584, 603] in disagreement with the simplistic all-or-nothing views of the plurality opinion and the dissenting opinion of THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
[ Footnote 2 ] These objective indicators are highly relevant, but the ultimate decision [433 U.S. 584, 604] as to the appropriateness of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment - as the plurality notes, ante, at 597 - must be decided on the basis of our own judgment in light of the precedents of this Court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, with whom MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST joins, dissenting.
In a case such as this, confusion often arises as to the Court's proper role in reaching a decision. Our task is not to give effect to our individual views on capital punishment; rather, we must determine what the Constitution permits a State to do under its reserved powers. In striking down the death penalty imposed upon the petitioner in this case, the Court has overstepped the bounds of proper constitutional adjudication by substituting its policy judgment for that of the state legislature. I accept that the Eighth Amendment's concept of disproportionality bars the death penalty for minor crimes. But rape is not a minor crime; hence the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause does not give the Members of this Court license to engraft their conceptions of proper public policy onto the considered legislative judgments of the States. Since I cannot agree that Georgia lacked the constitutional [433 U.S. 584, 605] power to impose the penalty of death for rape, I dissent from the Court's judgment.
On December 5, 1971, the petitioner, Ehrlich Anthony Coker, raped and then stabbed to death a young woman. Less than eight months later Coker kidnaped and raped a second young woman. After twice raping this 16-year-old victim, he stripped her, severely beat her with a club, and dragged her into a wooded area where he left her for dead. He was apprehended and pleaded guilty to offenses stemming from these incidents. He was sentenced by three separate courts to three life terms, two 20-year terms, and one 8-year term of imprisonment. 1 Each judgment specified that the sentences it imposed were to run consecutively rather than concurrently. Approximately 1 1/2 years later, on September 2, 1974, petitioner escaped from the state prison where he was serving these sentences. He promptly raped another 16-year-old woman in the presence of her husband, abducted her from her home, and threatened her with death and serious bodily harm. It is this crime for which the sentence now under review was imposed.
The Court today holds that the State of Georgia may not impose the death penalty on Coker. In so doing, it prevents the State from imposing any effective punishment upon Coker for his latest rape. The Court's holding, moreover, bars Georgia from guaranteeing its citizens that they [433 U.S. 584, 606] will suffer no further attacks by this habitual rapist. In fact, given the lengthy sentences Coker must serve for the crimes he has already committed, the Court's holding assures that petitioner - as well as others in his position - will henceforth feel no compunction whatsoever about committing further rapes as frequently as he may be able to escape from confinement and indeed even within the walls of the prison itself. To what extent we have left States "elbowroom" to protect innocent persons from depraved human beings like Coker remains in doubt.
My first disagreement with the Court's holding is its unnecessary breadth. The narrow issue here presented is whether the State of Georgia may constitutionally execute this petitioner for the particular rape which he has committed, in light of all the facts and circumstances shown by this record. The plurality opinion goes to great lengths to consider societal mores and attitudes toward the generic crime of rape and the punishment for it; however, the opinion gives little attention to the special circumstances which bear directly on whether imposition of the death penalty is an appropriate societal response to Coker's criminal acts: (a) On account of his prior offenses, Coker is already serving such lengthy prison sentences that imposition of additional periods of imprisonment would have no incremental punitive effect; (b) by his life pattern Coker has shown that he presents a particular danger to the safety, welfare, and chastity of women, and on his record the likelihood is therefore great that he will repeat his crime at the first opportunity; (c) petitioner escaped from prison, only a year and a half after he commenced serving his latest sentences; he has nothing to lose by further escape attempts; and (d) should he again succeed in escaping from prison, it is reasonably predictable that he will repeat his pattern of attacks on [433 U.S. 584, 607] women - and with impunity since the threat of added prison sentences will be no deterrent.
Unlike the plurality, I would narrow the inquiry in this case to the question actually presented: Does the Eighth Amendment's ban against cruel and unusual punishment prohibit the State of Georgia from executing a person who has, within the space of three years, raped three separate women, killing one and attempting to kill another, who is serving prison terms exceeding his probable lifetime and who has not hesitated to escape confinement at the first available opportunity? Whatever one's view may be as to the State's constitutional power to impose the death penalty upon a rapist who stands before a court convicted for the first time, this case reveals a chronic rapist whose continuing danger to the community is abundantly clear.
MR. JUSTICE POWELL would hold the death sentence inappropriate in this case because "there is no indication that petitioner's offense was committed with excessive brutality or that the victim sustained serious or lasting injury." Ante, at 601. 2 Apart from the reality that rape is inherently one [433 U.S. 584, 608] of the most egregiously brutal acts one human being can inflict upon another, there is nothing in the Eighth Amendment that so narrowly limits the factors which may be considered by a state legislature in determining whether a particular punishment is grossly excessive. Surely recidivism, especially the repeated commission of heinous crimes, is a factor which may properly be weighed as an aggravating circumstance, permitting the imposition of a punishment more severe than for one isolated offense. For example, as a matter of national policy, Congress has expressed its will that a person who has committed two felonies will suffer enhanced punishment for a third one, 18 U.S.C. 3575 (e) (1); Congress has also declared that a second conviction for assault on a mail carrier may be punished more seriously than a first such conviction, 18 U.S.C. 2114. Many States [433 U.S. 584, 609] provide an increased penalty for habitual criminality. See, e. g., Wis. Stat. Ann. 939.62 (1958); see also Annot., 58 A. L. R. 20 (1929); 82 A. L. R. 345 (1933); 79 A. L. R. 2d 826 (1961). 3 As a factual matter, the plurality opinion is correct in stating that Coker's "prior convictions do not change the fact that the instant crime being punished is a rape not involving the taking of life," ante, at 599; however, it cannot be disputed that the existence of these prior convictions makes Coker a substantially more serious menace to society than a first-time offender: 4
In sum, once the Court has held that "the punishment of death does not invariably violate the Constitution," Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 169, it seriously impinges upon the State's legislative judgment to hold that it may not impose such sentence upon an individual who has shown total and repeated disregard for the welfare, safety, personal integrity, and human worth of others, and who seemingly cannot be deterred from continuing such conduct. 5 I therefore would [433 U.S. 584, 611] hold that the death sentence here imposed is within the power reserved to the State and leave for another day the question of whether such sanction would be proper under other circumstances. The dangers which inhere whenever the Court casts its constitutional decisions in terms sweeping beyond the facts of the case presented, are magnified in the context of the Eighth Amendment. In Furman v. Georgia, supra, at 431, MR. JUSTICE POWELL, in dissent, stated:
The plurality, ante, at 597-598, acknowledges the gross nature of the crime of rape. A rapist not only violates a victim's privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. The long-range effect upon the victim's life and health is likely [433 U.S. 584, 612] to be irreparable; it is impossible to measure the harm which results. Volumes have been written by victims, physicians, and psychiatric specialists on the lasting injury suffered by rape victims. Rape is not a mere physical attack - it is destructive of the human personality. The remainder of the victim's life may be gravely affected, and this in turn may have a serious detrimental effect upon her husband and any children she may have. I therefore wholly agree with MR. JUSTICE WHITE'S conclusion as far as it goes - that "[s]hort of homicide, [rape] is the `ultimate violation of self.'" Ante, at 597. Victims may recover from the physical damage of knife or bullet wounds, or a beating with fists or a club, but recovery from such a gross assault on the human personality is not healed by medicine or surgery. To speak blandly, as the plurality does, of rape victims who are "unharmed," or to classify the human outrage of rape, as does MR. JUSTICE POWELL, in terms of "excessively brutal," ante, at 601, versus "moderately brutal," takes too little account of the profound suffering the crime imposes upon the victims and their loved ones.
Despite its strong condemnation of rape, the Court reaches the inexplicable conclusion that "the death penalty . . . is an excessive penalty" for the perpetrator of this heinous offense. 7 This, the Court holds, is true even though in Georgia the death penalty may be imposed only where the rape is coupled with one or more aggravating circumstances. The process by which this conclusion is reached is as startling as it is disquieting. It represents a clear departure from precedent by making this Court "under the aegis of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the ultimate arbiter of the standards of criminal responsibility in diverse areas of the [433 U.S. 584, 613] criminal law, throughout the country." Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 533 (1968) (opinion of MARSHALL, J.). 8 This seriously strains and distorts our federal system, removing much of the flexibility from which it has drawn strength for two centuries.
The analysis of the plurality opinion is divided into two parts: (a) an "objective" determination that most American jurisdictions do not presently make rape a capital offense, and (b) a subjective judgment that death is an excessive punishment for rape because the crime does not, in and of itself, cause the death of the victim. I take issue with each of these points.
More to the point, however, it is myopic to base sweeping constitutional principles upon the narrow experience of the past five years. Considerable uncertainty was introduced into this area of the law by this Court's Furman decision. A large number of States found their death penalty statutes invalidated; legislatures were left in serious doubt by the expressions vacillating between discretionary and mandatory death penalties, as to whether this Court would sustain any statute imposing death as a criminal sanction. 9 Failure of more States to enact statutes imposing death for rape of an adult woman may thus reflect hasty legislative compromise occasioned by time pressures following Furman, a desire to wait on the experience of those States which did enact such statutes, or simply an accurate forecast of today's holding.
In any case, when considered in light of the experience since the turn of this century, where more than one-third of American jurisdictions have consistently provided the death penalty for rape, the plurality's focus on the experience of the immediate past must be viewed as truly disingenuous. Having in mind the swift changes in positions of some Members of this Court in the short span of five years, can it rationally be considered a relevant indicator of what our society deems "cruel and unusual" to look solely to what legislatures have refrained from doing under conditions of great uncertainty arising from our less than lucid holdings on the Eighth Amendment? Far more representative of societal mores of the 20th century is the accepted [433 U.S. 584, 615] practice in a substantial number of jurisdictions preceding the Furman decision. "[The] problem . . . is the suddenness of the Court's perception of progress in the human attitude since decisions of only a short while ago." Furman v. Georgia, supra, at 410 (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting). Cf. Rudolph v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 889 (1963).
However, even were one to give the most charitable acceptance to the plurality's statistical analysis, it still does not, to my mind, support its conclusion. The most that can be claimed is that for the past year Georgia has been the only State whose adult rape death penalty statute has not otherwise been invalidated; two other state legislatures had enacted rape death penalty statutes in the last five years, but these were invalidated for reasons unrelated to rape under the Court's decisions last Term. Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976); Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976). Even if these figures could be read as indicating that no other States view the death penalty as an appropriate punishment for the rape of an adult woman, it would not necessarily follow that Georgia's imposition of such sanction violates the Eighth Amendment.
The Court has repeatedly pointed to the reserve strength of our federal system which allows state legislatures, within broad limits, to experiment with laws, both criminal and civil, in the effort to achieve socially desirable results. See, e. g., Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 597 -598, and n. 22 (1977); Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 376 (1972) (opinion of POWELL, J.); California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 184 -185 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring); Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261, 296 (1947). Various provisions of the Constitution, including the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause, of course place substantive limitations on the type of experimentation a State may undertake. However, as the plurality admits, the crime of rape is second perhaps only to murder in its gravity. It follows then that Georgia did not approach [433 U.S. 584, 616] such substantive constraints by enacting the statute here in question. See also infra, at 619-622.
Statutory provisions in criminal justice applied in one part of the country can be carefully watched by other state legislatures, so that the experience of one State becomes available to all. Although human lives are in the balance, it must be remembered that failure to allow flexibility may also jeopardize human lives - those of the victims of undeterred criminal conduct. See infra, at 620. Our concern for the accused ought not foreclose legislative judgments showing a modicum of consideration for the potential victims.
Three state legislatures have, in the past five years, determined that the taking of human life and the devastating consequences of rape will be minimized if rapists may, in a limited class of cases, be executed for their offenses. 10 That these States are presently a minority does not, in my view, make their judgment less worthy of deference. Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty; a state legislature is not to be thought insensitive to human values because it acts firmly to protect the lives and related values of the innocent. In this area, the choices for legislatures are at best painful and difficult and deserve a high degree of deference. Only last Term MR. JUSTICE WHITE observed:
In order for Georgia's legislative program to develop it must be given time to take effect so that data may be evaluated for comparison with the experience of States which have not enacted death penalty statutes. Today, the Court repudiates the State's solemn judgment on how best to deal with the crime of rape before anyone can know whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent for one of the most horrible of all crimes. And this is done a few short years after MR. JUSTICE POWELL's excellent statement:
It begs the question to state, as does the plurality opinion:
Only one year ago the Court held it constitutionally permissible to impose the death penalty for the crime of murder, provided that certain procedural safeguards are followed. Compare Gregg v. Georgia, supra; Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976), and Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976), with Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976), and Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976). Today, the plurality readily admits that "[s]hort of homicide, [rape] is the `ultimate violation of self.'" Ante, at 597. Moreover, as stated by MR. JUSTICE POWELL:
The Court's conclusion to the contrary is very disturbing indeed. The clear implication of today's holding appears to be that the death penalty may be properly imposed only as to crimes resulting in death of the victim. This casts serious doubt upon the constitutional validity of statutes imposing the death penalty for a variety of conduct which, though dangerous, may not necessarily result in any immediate death, e. g., treason, airplane hijacking, and kidnaping. In that respect, today's holding does even more harm than is initially apparent. We cannot avoid taking judicial notice that crimes such as airplane hijacking, kidnaping, and mass terrorist activity constitute a serious and increasing danger to the safety of the public. It would be unfortunate indeed if the effect of today's holding were to inhibit States and the Federal Government from experimenting with various remedies - including possibly imposition of the penalty of death - to prevent and deter such crimes. [433 U.S. 584, 622]
Some sound observations, made only a few years ago, deserve repetition:
[ Footnote 1 ] On March 12, 1973, the Superior Court of Richmond County, Ga., sentenced Coker to 20 years' imprisonment for the kidnaping of petitioner's second victim, and to life imprisonment for one act of rape upon her. On May 28, 1973, the Superior Court of Taliaferro County, Ga., sentenced Coker to eight years' imprisonment for aggravated assault upon the same victim, and to life imprisonment for the second rape upon her. On April 6, 1973, the Superior Court of Clayton County, Ga., sentenced Coker to 20 years' imprisonment for the rape of petitioner's first victim, and to life imprisonment for her murder. App. 307-312.
[ Footnote 2 ] The position today adopted by Mr. JUSTICE POWELL constitutes a disquieting shift from the view he embraced several Terms ago in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 460 -461 (1972) (dissenting opinion), where he stated:
The difficulty with the first part of MR. JUSTICE POWELL'S test is that rape is inherently an aggravated offense; in MR. JUSTICE POWELL'S own words, "the threat of both [physical and psychological] injury is always present." Id., at 459. Therefore the "excessive brutality" requirement must refer to something more, I assume, than the force normally associated with physically coercing or overpowering the will of another. Rather, what must be meant is that the rapist has engaged in torture or has committeed an aggravated battery upon the victim. See ante, at 601-602, and n. 1. However, torture and aggravated battery are offenses separate from rape, and ordinarily are punished separately. The clear negative inference of MR. JUSTICE POWELL'S analysis therefore appears to be that where rape alone is committed, i. e., rape unaccompanied by any other criminal conduct, the death penalty may never be imposed.
[ Footnote 3 ] This Court has consistently upheld the constitutional validity of such punishment-enhancing statutes. See, e. g., Spencer v. Texas, 385 U.S. 554, 559 -560 (1967):
[ Footnote 4 ] This special danger is demonstrated by the very record in this case. After tying and gagging the victim's husband, and raping the victim, petitioner sought to make his getaway in their automobile. Leaving the victim's husband tied and gagged in his bathroom, Coker took the victim with him. As he started to leave, he brandished the kitchen knife he was carrying and warned the husband that "if he would get pulled over or the police was following him in any way that he would kill - he would kill my wife. He said he didn't have nothing to lose - that he was in prison for the rest of his life, anyway . . . ." Testimony of the victim's husband, App. 121 (emphasis added).
[ Footnote 5 ] Professor Packer addressed this:
[ Footnote 6 ] I find a disturbing confusion as to this issue in the plurality opinion. The issue is whether Georgia can, under any circumstances and for any kind of rape - "mild" or "gross" - impose the death penalty. Yet the plurality opinion opens its discussion, apparently directed at demonstrating that this was not an "aggravated" rape, saying that following the rape and kidnaping, "Mrs. Carver was unharmed." Ante, at 587. If the Court is holding that no rape can ever be punished by death, why is it relevant whether Mrs. Carver was "unharmed"?
[ Footnote 7 ] While only three Justices have joined MR. JUSTICE WHITE in this portion of his opinion, see separate opinion of MR. JUSTICE POWELL, ante, p. 601, I take this to be the view of the Court in light of MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN'S and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL'S statements joining the judgment.
[ Footnote 8 ] Only last Term in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), MR. JUSTICE STEWART, MR. JUSTICE POWELL, and MR. JUSTICE STEVENS warned that "the requirements of the Eighth Amendment must be applied with an awareness of the limited role to be played by the courts," and noted that "we may not act as judges as we might as legislators," id., at 174-175. Accord, Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325, 355 -356 (1976) (WHITE, J., dissenting). MR. JUSTICE STEWART, MR. JUSTICE POWELL, and MR. JUSTICE STEVENS further noted that "[t]he deference we owe to decisions of the state legislatures under our federal system, [Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S.,] at 465-470 (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting), is enhanced where the specification of punishments is concerned, for `these are peculiarly questions of legislative policy.' Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 393 (1958)." 428 U.S., at 176 . (Emphasis added.)
[ Footnote 9 ] I take no satisfaction in my predictive caveat in Furman:
[ Footnote 10 ] The statute here in question does not provide the death penalty for any and all rapes. Rather, the jury must find that at least one statutorily defined aggravated circumstance is present. Ga. Code 26-3102, 27-2534.1 (b) (1), (2), and (7) (1977).
[ Footnote 11 ] "The value of capital punishment as a deterrent of crime is a complex factual issue the resolution of which properly rests with the legislatures, which can evaluate the results of statistical studies in terms of their own local conditions and with a flexibility of approach that is not available to the courts. Furman v. Georgia, [408 U.S.,] at 403-405 (BURGER, C. J., dissenting)." Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S., at 186 (joint opinion of STEWART, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ.).
[ Footnote 12 ] "There are many cases in which the sordid, heinous nature of a particular [rape], demeaning, humiliating, and often physically or psychologically traumatic, will call for public condemnation." Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S., at 459 (POWELL, J., dissenting).
[ Footnote 13 ] Obviously I have no special competence to make these judgments, but by the same token no other Member of the Court is competent to make a contrary judgment. This is why our system has, until now, left these difficult policy choices to the state legislatures, which may be no wiser, but surely are more attuned to the mores of their communities, than are we.
[ Footnote 14 ] Indeed as recently as 1971 - a year before Furman - a majority of this Court appeared to have no doubt about the constitutionality of the death penalty. See McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 (1971).
[ Footnote 15 ] To paraphrase MR. JUSTICE POWELL, "[w]hat [the Court is] saying, in effect, is that the evolutionary process has come suddenly to an end; that the ultimate wisdom as to the appropriateness of capital punishment [for adult rape] under all circumstances, and for all future generations, has somehow been revealed." Furman v. Georgia, supra, at 430-431 (dissenting opinion).
[ Footnote 16 ] For example, hardly any thief would be deterred from stealing if the only punishment upon being caught were return of the money stolen.
[ Footnote 17 ] MR. JUSTICE STEWART, MR. JUSTICE POWELL, and MR. JUSTICE STEVENS in Gregg v. Georgia noted: "[I]n assessing a punishment selected by a democratically elected legislature against the constitutional measure [of the Eighth Amendment], we presume its validity. . . . [A] heavy burden rests on those who would attack the judgment of the representatives of the people." 428 U.S., at 175 (emphasis added). Accord, Furman v. Georgia, supra, at 451 (POWELL, J., dissenting).
The reason for this special deference to state legislative enactments was described:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 433 U.S. 584
Docket No: No. 75-5444
Argued: March 28, 1977
Decided: June 29, 1977
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw's newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)


text:
Halo Gel Polish 8ml Cashmere
This product is currently sold out.
Halo Gel Polish is the number one gel polish brand for professional nail techs, and it's easy to see why.
It's easy to apply, has amazing shine and pigmentation and provides a 14-day chip-free, long lasting manicure. Not to mention it's also vegan, cruelty free and HEMA free ! What more could you want?
It's also removed easily and causes zero damage to the natural nail, plus it's both UV and LED curable. We love it and so will you.
Halo Gel Polish couldn't be easier to apply! For maximum wear, follow our simple step by step below:
- Prepare the nails by shaping, doing cuticle work and removing surface shine with a 220 grit buffer. Make sure you remove the shine at the sidewalls and around the cuticle.
- Use our Halo Prep & Scrub to remove any dust and oils from the nail plate.
- Apply a Halo Base Coat in a thin layer. Remember to cap the free edge!
- Cure for 30 seconds in a UV Lamp.
- Pick your fave Halo Gel Polish colour and apply a thin later to the nail, remembering again to cap that free edge.
- Cure for 30 seconds in a Halo Smart Lamp.
- Apply a second thin layer of your chosen Halo Gel Polish, seal the free edge and cure for 30 seconds.
- Apply a thin layer of your chosen Halo Top Coat sealing the free edge and cure for 30 seconds.
- Some of our Top Coats need their sticky layer removing with a Lint-Free Pad and Gel Wipe.
- Apply Cuticle Oil once the manicure has finished.


text:
La Maison Acadienne is a HUD Apartment. HUD residents usually pay 30% of their gross income for rent. The rent amount, less approved HUD deductions such as medical and child care expenses, and other allowances, includes a utility allowance. HUD Residents also may choose to pay what is known as flat rent. The HACC works with applicants to determine which rent arrangement is best for them.
La Maison Acadienne is a senior low income housing apartment subsidized by the federal governments HUD (Housing and Urban Development Division). Contact La Maison Acadienne for complete details on the current vacancies and housing applications.
Elderly Housing Development & Operations Corp. maintains 62 units at this location.
Monday to Friday 8:00 am – 4:30 pm


text:
Custom Tank Tops
Shop Our Promotional Tank Tops!
When the weather is warmer it's easy to keep cool with our promotional tank tops. We offer a variety of both standard and performance tank top shirts in a variety of colors. Whether you're promoting a team or business we can print or embroider your logo onto customizable tank tops to fit your marketing needs. Custom tank tops are a very versatile promotional item giving companies the capability to get creative with the designing process, the possibilities really are endless. With so many styles, cuts, and colors to choose from, companies do not have to feel limited.Mesh Tank Tops for Your Sporting Needs
No matter what sport you are participating in, mesh custom tank tops make an ideal practice jersey. Available in both youth and adult sizes, your entire team can be outfitted in these custom tank tops. The reversible mesh custom tank tops, in particular, are great for scrimmage games or to identify particular players during practice. For instance, if a high school football team wants to protect injured players or even the quarterback, in a non-game scenario, these players can simply flip their mesh colored tank tops to a brighter color so the rest of the team knows how to identify them. Another great way to utilize mesh custom tank tops, is to split a team in to two. If coaches want to evaluate some of the players on a high school freshman field hockey team compared to the JV team, having the freshman flip their jerseys over allows for easy identification. Adult leagues can even benefit from using mesh custom tank tops. If a community center has multiple men's intramural basketball teams, the head of the program can distribute two-sided colored mesh tank tops to every participant. Even though there are multiple teams, these two-sided colored jerseys make it easier than ever for the teams to coordinate team colors when they compete. Whether you are outfitting an adult league, differentiating players, or dividing a team, tank tops make the task simple and efficient.
Commemorate Events With Custom Tank Tops
Everyone loves a souvenir. Custom tank tops are one of the most popular vacation and or event promotional product for both men and women. When traveling to beach cities like Hilton Head Islands in South Carolina or Destin, Florida, every where you look there are shops dedicated to vacationer commemorative apparel. Similarly, visitors can even design their very own custom tank tops with friends. People enjoy commemorating fun experiences and events, and souvenir tank tops are an inexpensive option to do just that. However, you don't have to be a business in a beach town to benefit from custom tank tops. Corporations can use these tank tops for corporate intramural teams, to promote their brand around town, or even outfit the company with corporate apparel during the summer months. With so many styles, cuts, and colors available, companies are sure to find the ideal branded tank tops to fit their budget and their needs. Let our team help you choose the best tank tops for your event!


text:
Royals - 300 010 010 - 5 16 1 Red Sox - 230 501 01x - 12 16 2David Ortiz's 10th career grand slam - and 20th home run of the season - broke the game open in the fourth inning as Boston battered Bruce Chen (4-10-10-3-3, 114) and upped their July record to 18-4. Since June 2, the Red Sox have gone 34-12 (.739, a 120-win pace).
It was Boston's first grand slam of the season - and it upped Ortiz's RBI total with the Red Sox to an even 1,000. Only five other players in team history have more: Carl Yastrzemski (1,844), Ted Williams (1,839), Jim Rice (1,451), Dwight Evans (1,346), and Bobby Doerr (1,247). ... Ortiz's dong was #311 with Boston, fifth-highest in team history.
Jacoby Ellsbury and Dustin Pedroia began the first inning - after John Lackey had put the team in an 0-3 hole - with back-to-back home runs. Pedroia extended his hitting streak to 24 games.
Ellsbury, Pedroia, and Adrian Gonzalez each finished the night with three hits. Ellsbury scored three times and Gonzalez drove in three runs. At the bottom of the order, Darnell McDonald and Yamaico Navarro both went 2-for-4.
Lackey (5.2-11-4-1-3, 113) gave up a three-run bomb to Eric Hosmer on his 15th pitch of the night. He was more than a little lucky, allowing another 11 base runners but only one run (a solo homer by Billy Butler). Six of the nine men Lackey left on base were stranded at second or third.
The Mariners snapped their 17-game losing streak by beating the Yankees 9-2 this afternoon, so Boston's lead in the East is back to three games.
Bruce Chen / John Lackey
Dustin Pedroia has hit safely in 23 consecutive games, and in 42 of his last 44 games. Dom DiMaggio has the longest hitting streak in team history: 34 games, June 29 to August 7, 1949. Looking at DiMaggio's game log, he appeared as a pinch-runner on July 18 and was caught stealing, but since he did not come to the plate, his streak (then at 15 games) remained intact. Here is a list of the top Sox streaks.
Kevin Youkilis will probably be given another night to rest his right hamstring, so the Laser Chicken may make his eighth career start as Boston's clean-up hitter. In 38 plate appearances in the #4 spot, Pedroia is hitting .559 and slugging 1.118. Ten of his 19 hits have been for extra-bases, and he has struck out only once. David Ortiz: "If I'm Tito, I'd let him hit cleanup the whole year."
Terry Francona says Jed Lowrie's rehab of his left shoulder has been a "slow, steady progression"; he has taken soft toss, but has not hit on the field yet.
Quiz: J.D. Drew is now on the disabled list with a "left shoulder impingement". In his five seasons with Boston, how many times has Drew been on the DL?
MFY: Mariners/Yankees at 1 PM.


text:
Princeton University professor emeritus Charles Gilvarg, remembered as a tireless scientist and a demanding but motivational professor, died Jan. 6 in Scottsdale, Ariz., following a stroke. He was 87.
During his 34 years at the University, Gilvarg, who in 1998 was named professor of molecular biology, emeritus, and senior scientist, established himself as a preeminent researcher in the field of cellular metabolism. He published 131 papers — the latest in 2011 — and mentored many undergraduate and graduate students. He also saw Princeton's Program in Biochemical Sciences through its evolution to a department and served as the first chair of the Department of Biochemical Science (which became the Department of Molecular Biology in 1990) from 1970 to 1973.
Longtime friend and colleague Jacques Fresco, the Damon B. Pfeiffer Professor in the Life Sciences at Princeton, said that Gilvarg was a "major figure" in intermediary metabolism, the chemical processes through which cells produce energy, the building blocks of proteins and other essential components. Gilvarg's work related specifically to amino-acid biosynthesis and transport, and was important to a biochemical-research renaissance during the 1960s and '70s.
"He was brilliant, an outstanding researcher," said Fresco, who met Gilvarg in the 1950s when both were postdoctoral researchers in New York City. "He was exceedingly bright, a very fast thinker and he could immediately see the essence of a research area."
Fresco helped lure Gilvarg from the New York University School of Medicine to Princeton in 1964, the year after Gilvarg received the American Chemical Society's Paul Lewis Award for outstanding researchers under 40. At Princeton, Gilvarg and Fresco shared an office suite for decades. Although they focused on different areas of biochemistry, Gilvarg could comfortably discuss and evaluate other disciplines and scientists.
"He was unusually able to assess the capabilities of others. It came in handy as we were expanding the young department and adding new faculty," Fresco said. "He really was considered a very clear lecturer and thinker, and what people will most remember was his exceptionally quick mind and his remarkable ability to assess new information with great clarity and vision."
Gilvarg also was known as a thorough and hard-working researcher who expected just as much from his students.
Elaine Fuchs, who studied under Gilvarg from 1972 until 1977 when she received her Ph.D. in biochemical sciences, said that his expectations shaped her own scientific rigor. Fuchs, the Rebecca C. Lancefield Professor in Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology at Rockefeller University in New York, studies mammalian skin diseases and her work has been instrumental to the development of modern dermatology.
"At first glance, his high standards seemed unachievable," Fuchs said. "However, as the years in his lab went by, I began to strive harder to meet them. I became increasingly passionate about designing well-controlled experiments to test interesting and important questions.
"I credit much of what success I have achieved in my own scientific career to Charlie's patience and superb teaching skills, and to his love for science," Fuchs said. "He will be dearly remembered by all of us who so greatly benefited from his many talents."
Gilvarg's wife, Frieda, said that her husband enjoyed learning about other scientific fields and that his reputation for thoroughness extended to even casual conversation.
"You had to worry when you asked him a question because he always started from square one," Frieda said, laughing. "He didn't like to give superficial answers, so if you asked him a question you had to have a lot of time. Everything he did was that way."
Charles Gilvarg's scientific career began with a chemistry set he received from a landlady when he was 8 and continued into last year, Frieda said. At the time of his death, Gilvarg was working on a biological indicator of early-stage pancreatic cancer and was awaiting efficacy results from biological samples. He had demonstrated the biomarker's potential in a 2011 paper in the journal Cancer Biomarkers.
"Science was his absolute focus. His life revolved around his work and everything except his family was secondary," Frieda said. "I was resigned to the fact that he would never be totally retired, even though he pretended to be. He was going to keep working until he died, which he did. One of the parts of his death that is hardest for me to take is that he was so close [to seeing the biomarker project through]."
During his career, Gilvarg worked alongside some of the most prominent people in his field, including his doctoral thesis adviser and 1964 Nobel Laureate Konrad Bloch, who once quipped that Gilvarg was the only student whose questions he dreaded, Fresco said. After receiving his bachelor's degree in chemical engineering from the Cooper Union in 1948, Gilvarg worked under Bloch at the University of Chicago before receiving his Ph.D. in 1951. After honing his interest in amino-acid biosynthesis as a postdoctoral researcher with noted microbiologist Bernard Davis, Gilvarg in 1954 joined the faculty of the NYU biochemistry department chaired by 1959 Nobel Laureate Severo Ochoa.
In addition to his wife, Gilvarg is survived by his four children — Karyn, David, Martin and Gail — as well as his eight grandchildren: Amos, Ian, Alexander, Megan, Charles, Thomas, Katherine and Patrick.
In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made to the Cooper Union Office of Alumni Affairs and Development, Attn: Brooke Bryant, 30 Cooper Square, 8th Floor, New York, N.Y., 10003. A memorial service in Princeton is planned for later this year.


text:
So, in an attempt to (A) increase the volume of mail that comes through my little post office, and (B) to do something really FUN, I'm proposing the following:
- YOU send me an art postcard. It can be original handmade, or a photocopy of something you've made. Print your name and address clearly on the card.
- Mail to: Jane Davies, PO Box 45, Rupert, VT 05768
- I send YOU a postcard, handmade. I don't promise it will be something you want to frame, but it will be original. I will send postcards to the first 200 respondents.
- I will post ALL the post cards I receive on this blog. On each card I will indicate the name of its creator and the place from whence it came. If the volume is overwhelming, I'll open a separate blog just for the cards. If nobody sends me a card, I will be sad and our post mistress will be out of a good time, and eventually a job.
Below are a few samples of the cards that I will send. Each is approximately 4"x6":
Here is a little video of the post office in action. Well, at lunch break when the post mistress is out:
See the Postcard Gallery here.


text:
If you have purchased a condo or co-op, the bank will require insurance to protect its investment in your home. You may, however, need more insurance to cover your personal items, liability or fees that may be charged to you regarding shared areas of the building like the lobby.
You will need two separate policies to protect your investment:
To adequately insure your apartment, it is important to know which structural parts of your home are covered by the condo/co-op association and which are not. You can do this by reading your association's bylaws and/or proprietary lease. If you have questions, talk to your condo association, insurance professional or family attorney. Sometimes the association is responsible for insuring the individual condo or co-op units, as they were originally built, including standard fixtures. The individual owner, in this case, is only responsible for alterations to the original structure of the apartment, like remodeling the kitchen or bathtub. Sometimes this includes not only improvements you make, but those made by previous owners. In other situations, the condo/co-op association is responsible only for insuring the bare walls, floor and ceiling. The owner must insure kitchen cabinets, built-in appliances, plumbing, wiring, bathroom fixtures etc.
Also ask your insurance professional about the following additional coverages:


text:
Never Not Knitting Ravelry Group
Follow me on Twitter!
The winner of Episode 43's Roseknits Bag Drawing Giveaway is Cheryl! Congratulations!
*Check back soon to enter the drawing for Episode 44!
I would love to win a copy of Brave New Knits. It looks like a fantastic book !
Another great podcast! Of course all this talk of Becoming Art yarn made me "accidently" click the BUY NOW button and end up with three skeins on their way to me. Whoops. hehe :)
Another great giveaway! I'd love to win too.
Maybe this time I'll be lucky.
Wonderful postcast, Alana!! Love the new hat pattern too.
I am SUPER excited to see you at Stitches West. Last year, I looked for you among the throngs of people but now I will know how to find you. :) Leslie (of the "Knitting Emmy" episode)
congratulations Cheryl. You must be one very happy knitter.
So exited to hear that you will be at Stitches West, can't wait to meet you.
Really enjoyed your interview with Julie. I would REALLY love to win that prize!
This would be a great book to win. Love your podcast!
I love Brave New Knits, just for the orchid thief shawlette, but there are lovely patterns throughout. I also love your new pattern -- finished the shawlette pattern of yours not long ago and have received SO many comments. Keep up the great work.
I love Brave New Knits, just for the orchid thief shawlette, but there are lovely patterns throughout. I also love your new pattern -- finished the shawlette pattern of yours not long ago and have received SO many comments. Keep up the great work.
Wow! Your readers are so lucky!
Saying hello from the Philippines. :)
This is so exciting. I want to knit the Lubov Shawl for my daughter. She was born in Russia and was named Lubov by her birth mother.
Brave new knits has been on in my amazon wish list for a while, have been waiting to finish a few more projects.... Would love to win a copy and I've yet to knit with malabrigo!(crazy I know)
Heather G
I want one too, thanks for the great interview. i also love your knitters' stories section. will you have that section in this season podcast as well?
Would love to have this one - so many great patterns and designers!!
Thanks, Alana!
I would love a copy of the book!
I would love to win a copy of Brave New Knits! :)
terrytribe (AT) gmail.com
love your podcast and waiting Patiently too win some day :)
My bookshelf NEEDS this book, lol!
Loved the Podcast! And of course I would love to win the book!!
Smiles, Dotty
Great podcast! Another great giveaway....pick me!!
Great episode I would love to win the book
Since I have read THE ORCHID THIEF, I would love to make this scarf!! And I am a native Floridian..so this would be special!!
I found lots of nice patterns in this book! Love Malabrigo too.
Your hat pattern is stunning. I adore the Orchid Thief Shawl, like all of Ysolde's work. I'd love to win the book and the yarn, but will probably ask for both for Christmas if I'm not the lucky one!
What a great book, would love to add it to my library! And I really need to make your new hat pattern, I love leaves! I have a couple of different sport weight yarns in my stash, including Madtosh Pashmina and Madtosh Eyre Light, so hopefully one of them will work. I keep hoping I'll be lucky and win your great giveaway, maybe I'll be lucky this time!
Wow! This books sounds just amazing, and when you mentioned photography was bY jared Flood, I stopped in my tracks, gotta have this book!!!


text:
Growing Your Blog: Building Real Relationships
Happy Weekend!
Trending Post: Free Hand Lettering Practice Pages
Trending Post: Free Hand Lettering Practice Pages
Happy Weekend!
Your information will *never* be shared or sold to a 3rd party.
Thanks Amy for the great series! I am going to use some of your ideas in this post! I can't wait to see the rest of the series!!
A lot of what you said is so right on. I feel like it's all about treating other bloggers the way you want to be treated. Leave kind comments, give credit-where credit is due, show some love and reach out!
Can I tell you a personal pet-peeve of mine? Blogs that have music on their page drive me nuts! I hate when I'm listening to something and then open a blog and their music starts going crazy. Just thought I'd share that! 🙂
Thank you so much for what you just said Amy. I agree with you totally, you see, I feel that we're all into this together, forming great relationships with lovely people that have so much in common with you and sharing so much inspiration, which always teach us something, everyday in every post we read and of course, how can one not comment and acknowledge, or at the same token reciprocate to the wonderful, lovely and generous comments they lieve you. I am going back to read more of your series. Although I'm not a DIY lately as before I used to make cloths for my girls when they were small, or I used to embroider tablecloths by hand, so, I hope I'll be able to join your party, but I will grab your button and place it in my side bar. Thanking you so much and have a happy Sunday.
Hi Amy,
Thanks for posting these tips…I've enjoyed the whole series. I think relationships are the reason many of us blog…it's the back and forth with others that make it so much fun. I have made amazing friends through my blog and am constantly inspired by them. In post @2, another blog tip I would add is to give some thought to the title of your post…both the title and the photo draw people in and make them want to read more. For example, a simple change like tweaking the title "My Doll Collection" to "Do You Collect Dolls?" often makes a big difference.Loving to write helps too!
Another former English teacher,
love it! I love meeting new people through the ol' blog. I do feel incredibly cheeky though asking a person if they want to do a giveaway or even guest post… not sure why.
Amy!! Here I am on my girls weekend and I decided, "what a great time to catch up on some of my favorite blogs" I came here first! You really have made it so clear and simple that blogging is a community, and I really do feel like we are all in this together! I am so happy I met you, and I talk about you like we just had coffee last week, haha! That really is how much you have become a part of my life 🙂 great post….now I am off to catch up on the rest of the series!
I completely agree with every point you made!! I adore the friends I have made blogging. My husband knows all of you by name and blog, ha,ha. I do tend to be a lurker and not comment as much as I should. It's a goal I am working on this year.:)
Amy, you are doing such a great job with the "Grow your blog series!" I am enjoying reading every single post. So helpful and inspirational! One question I have for your Q&A session is… if you're a smaller blog (such as myself) how do you reach out to people without bluntly asking them to review their product or ask them to do a giveaway on your site? I feel like such a tard asking people cuz I only have 124 "subscribed" readers. Any advise? Thanks hun!
I love this series. It's so great to hear what other people have learned about something that you also do. And I agree completely,…I feel like sometimes these bloggy friends get me better than friends I see in the flesh because we all share the same interests. Isn't it difficult sometimes to tell a friend in person about a linky party? Or what you've done all day? I love this bloggy community!
I think before I became a blogger I didn't really understand how the people I met in blog world could be my friends. I'm so glad that I have learned differently. I have met some amazing people and have developed amazing and true friendships. This is a fabulous list for building blogland friendships! Love it!
Thanks for the tips! Makes me feel like I'm on the right track at least. I did comment on someone else's blog the other day and I noticed that another commenter had criticized their polka dot background. Not sure really why, because I thought it looked cute. (Could be because I have a similar polka dot background!) But it was unnecessary, so I agree that if you don't have anything nice to say, keep it to yourself.
Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge and experience about blogging. I've been blogging for nearly 2 years along with running my boutique flower shop and taking care of my family. so sometimes, I feel like my learning curve is slow. I'm creative, but not techy. Look forward to reading the other posts in this series.
Great post! Well done! Thanks for passing on your wisdom friend:)
I LOVE the friend "sign"…it is on my blog!! It is my favorite part about blogging:)
Totally agree with what you've posted today. I consider you a blog friend and am happy to help with giveaways. You've always been happy to answer questions for me as a fledgling blogger.
Just added a section to my blog called "Blogs I Love" and One Artsy Mama is the first one on it!
These are all great tips. Thanks for sharing. Congrats and good luck with your continued blogging success.
Wow, I'm really glad I found your blog and these posts about blogging, haha! My blog is fairly new, almost a yr. old and I have about 68 followers or so. I'm always looking for ways to promote my blog and your posts seem really helpful, so I'm sitting here reading through them:) Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time out to help other bloggers!!
You are so right in the relationship building department. It sort of piggy backs on your linky post above, too. When I see a favorite "blogger" partner has been featured on a link party, I try so hard to get over there and congratulate them. As I'm writing this, I realized I hadn't seen yours on TT&J, and I'm sooo sorry!
These tips are so wonderful! I'm seriously taking notes right now. A lot of things I knew, but didn't understand to the extent you are explaining them. I absolutely love this, and hope to be able to make more bloggy friends soon!
Another great post! I'm glad you mentioned the part about pinning. I *love* being pinned but I wasn't sure if everyone else did. Before I started blogging I would pin away without a thought, now I always wonder if that's what the blogger wants. Yesterday I found this asparagus recipe on someone's blog and I just had to pin it (so I would remember to make it!). Right away it got 83 repins so I hightailed it back over to her to let her know. I'm hoping she got a nice spike in traffic as a result. 🙂
thanks so much for your tips. i just happened to come across your blog a few days ago & LOVE IT! Don't know where i've been.
LOVE your blog advice, Amy! So glad to be your 901 follower too!! hahaha! Gonna read some more of your grow your blog posts. Very practical, thanks!!
Wow! As a newbie to blogging, I am wonderfully excited to have found your blog! I keep telling my buds at work that bloggers are the nicest people on the planet! I found you through a pin on Pinterest….oh, how I love to see my work repinned! Thank you, BUNCHES for sharing your insight and wisdom. I'm looking forward to following you and using every bit of your advice!
Thanks again!
Hi Amy, I just finished reading through the grow your blog series. I just noticed it on my google reader. At some point in time I became a follower of yours! I'm glad I did. I read the whole series tonight. You shared so much good information. Some things I had never thought of and some things I do.I have been blogging since May of 2011 and on pinterest for about half that time maybe. Pinterest is my 3rd top referring site. It is definitely a powerhouse for bloggers. I don't have a lot of followers yet and giveaways seem to be a great way to increase traffic but not sure that giveaways are for me. Love your ideas and insights. Kathy, Petticoat Junktion
I also agree with you. Your every tips are very useful to us. Here above every topic is informative and i am so impressed by that post.
Thank you so much for taking the time to share these fabulous tips with everyone! Great advice.
Thank u thank u thank u,it is very helpful , dou have any articles about how to have time for blogging when u have a 1 year old baby??
Well said. Thanks so much for sharing your great tips at the Blog Tips Cafe linky party over at I Gotta Create!
<3 Christina
Thanks for the good information. A special thanks for adding the parts about integrity. If you say you are going to do something do it.
love this series you put together! reading through all of it now…
These tips are great! Thanks for sharing, I love them!
This comment has been removed by the author.
I pinned this under writing!
FANTASTIC advice! Love your encouragement to really connect with other bloggers. In the frantic "I have to link up to as many link parties as possibly in this one half hour I have for blogging…"-mentality, I think the relationship SO often get lost. Thanks for your wisdom 🙂
lauren mills
Great advice! I'm pinning this.
Thanks for all of the real, meaningful, helpful advice in this series! I have pinned a few links back to different parts of it so I can refer back to it!
Wonderful tips and advice! I'm enjoying working through your Grow Your Blog posts. I will be pinning this to my blogging board. Thank you!
Thank you for the tips,and I'm pinning for future reference.
Loving your Grow Your Blog series! I've pinned it and added your button to my blog – SummerThat.com 😉
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Your information will *never* be shared or sold to a 3rd party.


text:
The weekends on All Things Considered seriesMovies I've Seen A Million Times features filmmakers, actors, writers and directors talking about the movies that they never get tired of watching.
For actor Michael Peña, whose credits includeCrash, World Trade Center, and End of Watch , which opened in theaters this weekend, the movie he could watch a million times is Woody Allen'sBroadway Danny Rose .
Interview Highlights
On when he first saw Broadway Danny Rose
"I saw Broadway Danny Rose, I think, you know, when I first started acting. The thing that I loved was the storytelling."
On what he learned from the characters
"It opens up and you have these comedians, they're doing amazing jokes, and they're really funny and inventive. You know, you get into the world of what it means to be a comic."
On his favorite scene in the movie
"It's a movie about the absurd. One of my favorite scenes is a scene where he has this woman playing music with wine glasses. He's trying to pitch her to the guy and I forgot how it goes exactly but he's like: 'Not one lesson, never taken one lesson!'"
On why he loves watching the film
"For some reason it just tickles my funny bone every time I see that movie. You know, if I'm going through the guide and [I see] Broadway Danny Rose, it's almost like an event."
Copyright 2020 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
Be Smart Bet Smart
For many people betting on the horses is exciting and entertaining. They make thoughtful decisions about spending time and money. Here's how to wager responsibly:
- Balance playing the horses with other leisure activities.
- Play the horses for entertainment. Not as a way to make money.
- Do not "chase" losses. Accept them as the cost of entertainment.
- Use extra income, not money needed for everyday expenses.
- Set a time limit.
Responsible betting is probably what most people do on a daily basis. However, for some people, wagering or gambling becomes a serious problem, which they are unable to control. This lack of control leads to a state of compulsive or pathological gambling. Pathological gamblers cannot resist the temptation to gamble; they cannot stop regardless of their jobs, families or anything else.
How can you tell if you or someone you know has a gambling problem? Gambling becomes a problem when a person:
- Loses time from work, school or family life in order to gamble
- Gambles until all the money is gone
- Gambles to win back money lost through gambling
- Lies to hide gambling activity
- Boasts about winnings, vague about losing
- Fails time after time to reduce or stop gambling
Help is available 24 hours a day. Call 1-800-GAMBLER (1-800-426-2537)
National Council on Problem Gambling