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:
“No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.”
—Edmund Burke (1729–1797)
“As if reasoning were any kind of writing or talking which tends to convince people that some doctrine or measure is true and right.”
—Catherine E. Beecher (1800–1878)
“Reasoning is the pastime of my whole household, and all this reasoning has driven out Reason.”
—Molière [Jean Baptiste Poquelin] (1622–1673)