Carol Steiker

And the Supreme Court said, you know, it's totally OK to have mandatory non-capital sentences. We have a lot of them, actually, mandatory sentences for all kinds of things. But the Supreme Court said death is different. It's different in kind from any other punishment in its severity and its irrevocability.

And the Supreme Court said, you know, it's totally OK to have mandatory non-capital sentences. We have a lot of them, actually, mandatory sentences for all kinds of things. But the Supreme Court said death is different. It's different in kind from any other punishment in its severity and its irrevocability.

And the Supreme Court said, you know, it's totally OK to have mandatory non-capital sentences. We have a lot of them, actually, mandatory sentences for all kinds of things. But the Supreme Court said death is different. It's different in kind from any other punishment in its severity and its irrevocability.

And therefore, we have to attend to the diverse frailties of humankind before we sentence someone to death.

And therefore, we have to attend to the diverse frailties of humankind before we sentence someone to death.

And therefore, we have to attend to the diverse frailties of humankind before we sentence someone to death.

Correct. It allows a death penalty only if jurors are guided enough by some sentencing regime that gives them something to think about other than whatever they want. And they have to consider the diverse frailties of humankind. They have to consider mitigating evidence that might cut against a sentence of death.

Correct. It allows a death penalty only if jurors are guided enough by some sentencing regime that gives them something to think about other than whatever they want. And they have to consider the diverse frailties of humankind. They have to consider mitigating evidence that might cut against a sentence of death.

Correct. It allows a death penalty only if jurors are guided enough by some sentencing regime that gives them something to think about other than whatever they want. And they have to consider the diverse frailties of humankind. They have to consider mitigating evidence that might cut against a sentence of death.

When we ask whether something is cruel and unusual, do we ask whether it was cruel and unusual back in 1789 when they were writing the Constitution? Or do we ask whether it's cruel and unusual to contemporary sensibilities? It's kind of a rebuke to the idea that standards of decency evolve in one direction.

When we ask whether something is cruel and unusual, do we ask whether it was cruel and unusual back in 1789 when they were writing the Constitution? Or do we ask whether it's cruel and unusual to contemporary sensibilities? It's kind of a rebuke to the idea that standards of decency evolve in one direction.

When we ask whether something is cruel and unusual, do we ask whether it was cruel and unusual back in 1789 when they were writing the Constitution? Or do we ask whether it's cruel and unusual to contemporary sensibilities? It's kind of a rebuke to the idea that standards of decency evolve in one direction.