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:
“If death, said my father, reasoning with himself, is nothing but the separation of the soul from the body;—and if it is true that people can walk about and do their business without brains,—then certes the soul does not inhabit there. Q.E.D.”
—Laurence Sterne (1713–1768)
“Accuracy is, in every case, advantageous to beauty, and just reasoning to delicate sentiment. In vain would we exalt the one by depreciating the other.”
—David Hume (1711–1776)
“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)