Final answer:
The Gregg v. Georgia decision aimed to make the death penalty less arbitrary by introducing a bifurcated trial process and guidance for juries in the form of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Despite these reforms, the extent of reduction in arbitrariness is still debated, as issues such as inconsistent application and potential bias remain.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question refers to the death penalty (DP) and its perceived arbitrariness after the Gregg v. Georgia decision. To ascertain whether the DP became less arbitrary after the Gregg ruling, we must delve into the principles that the U.S. Supreme Court established in that case. In Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the Court held that the death penalty itself was constitutional, but it required the implementation of safeguards to ensure the punishment was applied in a fair and consistent manner.
To diminish the arbitrary nature of capital punishment, the Court mandated a bifurcated trial process, where the guilt and sentencing phases were separate. Moreover, the introduction of 'aggravating' and 'mitigating' circumstances was aimed to guide juries in making their decisions on whether to impose the death penalty. These changes were seen as a significant step forward in reducing arbitrariness in capital sentencing.
Despite these reforms, the question of how much arbitrariness was reduced by the Gregg decision is subject to ongoing debate in legal circles and among scholars. While the reforms brought in some level of structure and standardization, issues of inconsistent application, jury discretion, and potential bias continue to prompt discussion on the extent to which the death penalty remains arbitrary.