ning ▁argued ▁in ▁ 1 9 5 0 , ▁" ▁' some ▁cr imes ▁are ▁so ▁out rage ous ▁that ▁society ▁ins ists ▁on ▁ade qu ate ▁pun ishment , ▁because ▁the ▁wrong - do er ▁deser ves ▁it , ▁ir res pective ▁of ▁whether ▁it ▁is ▁a ▁d eter rent ▁or ▁not .' ▁" ▁See ▁Gre gg , ▁ 4 2 8 ▁U . ▁S ., ▁at ▁ 1 8 4 , ▁n . ▁ 3 0 . ▁Our ▁E ighth ▁Am end ment ▁juris pr ud ence ▁has ▁narrow ed ▁the ▁class ▁of ▁off enders ▁el ig ible ▁for ▁the ▁death ▁penalty ▁to ▁include ▁only ▁those ▁who ▁have ▁committed ▁out rage ous ▁cr imes ▁defined ▁by ▁specific ▁ag gra v ating ▁factors . ▁It ▁is ▁the ▁cruel ▁treatment ▁of ▁vict ims ▁that ▁provides ▁the ▁most ▁persu as ive ▁arguments ▁for ▁pro sec utors ▁seeking ▁the ▁death ▁penalty . ▁A ▁natural ▁response ▁to ▁such ▁he in ous ▁cr imes ▁is ▁a ▁th irst ▁for ▁ven ge ance . ▁ ▁He ▁further ▁str essed ▁concern ▁over ▁the ▁process ▁of ▁death ▁penalty ▁cases ▁where ▁em otion ▁plays ▁a ▁major ▁role ▁and ▁where ▁the ▁saf egu ards ▁for ▁defend ants ▁may ▁have ▁been ▁lower ed . ▁He ▁c ited ▁statistics ▁that ▁indicated ▁that ▁many ▁people ▁sent enced ▁to ▁die ▁were ▁later ▁found ▁to ▁be ▁wrong ly ▁conv icted . ▁He ▁concluded ▁by ▁stating ▁that ▁a ▁penalty ▁" with ▁such ▁neg lig ible ▁returns ▁to ▁the ▁State ▁[ is ] ▁pat ently ▁excess ive ▁and ▁cruel