Carol Steiker

There's no way the court can ignore that. It has to decide whether these new statutes are OK or not.

There's no way the court can ignore that. It has to decide whether these new statutes are OK or not.

They don't wait very long.

They don't wait very long.

They don't wait very long.

Texas, North Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, and Florida. What's interesting is there's two buckets of kinds of statutes. Like it upholds three of these new statutes, the ones from Georgia, Florida, and Texas, because it says that they do guidance. They guide the jury. They give the jury something to think about other than, you know, according to your conscience.

Texas, North Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, and Florida. What's interesting is there's two buckets of kinds of statutes. Like it upholds three of these new statutes, the ones from Georgia, Florida, and Texas, because it says that they do guidance. They guide the jury. They give the jury something to think about other than, you know, according to your conscience.

Texas, North Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, and Florida. What's interesting is there's two buckets of kinds of statutes. Like it upholds three of these new statutes, the ones from Georgia, Florida, and Texas, because it says that they do guidance. They guide the jury. They give the jury something to think about other than, you know, according to your conscience.

So they say, okay, those statutes are okay.

So they say, okay, those statutes are okay.

So they say, okay, those statutes are okay.

In 76, the Supreme Court said, yeah, no, you can't have mandatory statutes. One is, they said, it's not really going to take care of the problem of discretion because... Juries, if they don't want the person to get the death penalty, they'll just find them guilty of second degree murder. You know, that's always open to them.

In 76, the Supreme Court said, yeah, no, you can't have mandatory statutes. One is, they said, it's not really going to take care of the problem of discretion because... Juries, if they don't want the person to get the death penalty, they'll just find them guilty of second degree murder. You know, that's always open to them.

In 76, the Supreme Court said, yeah, no, you can't have mandatory statutes. One is, they said, it's not really going to take care of the problem of discretion because... Juries, if they don't want the person to get the death penalty, they'll just find them guilty of second degree murder. You know, that's always open to them.

So it's just going to drive the discretion underground rather than getting rid of it.

So it's just going to drive the discretion underground rather than getting rid of it.

So it's just going to drive the discretion underground rather than getting rid of it.

This is very poetic. It says it treats them as members of an undifferentiated mass subject to the blind infliction of capital punishment. And it doesn't give any consideration to the diverse frailties of humankind. I love that. Wow. Diverse frailties of humankind.

This is very poetic. It says it treats them as members of an undifferentiated mass subject to the blind infliction of capital punishment. And it doesn't give any consideration to the diverse frailties of humankind. I love that. Wow. Diverse frailties of humankind.

This is very poetic. It says it treats them as members of an undifferentiated mass subject to the blind infliction of capital punishment. And it doesn't give any consideration to the diverse frailties of humankind. I love that. Wow. Diverse frailties of humankind.