Reasoning
The court's decision stated a number of strands of reasons for its rationale in deciding this case:
- The sentencer has the right to consider all relevant evidence, with the rules of evidence.
- The principle that punishment should fit the crime is relevant here, and this was a particularly aggravated and savage murder.
- That stare decisis is "not an inexorable command", and the Supreme Court, since Marbury v. Madison (1803) has decided what the law is.
- Because the defendant has the right to present mitigating evidence at the sentencing phase, the prosecution should be able to present aggravating evidence about the victim. (Justice Stevens, in dissent, characterizes this argument as a non sequitur. The defendant has constitutional rights because he is on trial - the victim is not on trial and has no constitutional rights in the proceeding.)
- The trial was fair in all respects, and mitigating evidence ought to be presented with damaging evidence when available.
Three Justices dissented: John Paul Stevens, Thurgood Marshall, and Harry Blackmun.
Read more about this topic: Payne V. Tennessee
Famous quotes containing the word reasoning:
“We put [young children] into kindergarten where their reasoning powers are ruined; or, if we can afford it, we buy Montessori outfits that were invented for semi-imbeciles in Italian slums; or we send them to outdoor schools and give them prizes for sleeping.”
—Katharine Fullerton Gerould (1879–1944)
“Acts themselves alone are history.... Tell me the acts, O historian, and leave me to reason upon them as I please; away with your reasoning and your rubbish! All that is not action is not worth reading.”
—William Blake (1757–1827)
“For this is one of the ancientest laws among them; that no man shall be blamed for reasoning in the maintenance of his own religion.”
—Sir Thomas More (1478–1535)