Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-9646.pdf
Page Number: 57.0

2 

MILLER v. ALABAMA 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

(plurality  opinion);  see  also  Graham  v.  Florida,  560  U. S. 
___,  ___  (2010)  (slip  op.,  at  7);  Kennedy  v.  Louisiana,  554 
U. S.  407,  419  (2008);  Roper  v.  Simmons,  543  U. S.  551, 
560–561 (2005); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304, 311–312 
(2002); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U. S. 1, 8 (1992); Ford v. 
Wainwright,  477  U. S.  399,  406  (1986);  Rhodes  v.  Chap-
man,  452  U. S.  337,  346  (1981);  Estelle  v.  Gamble,  429 
U. S. 97, 102 (1976).  Both the provenance and philosoph- 
ical  basis  for  this  standard  were  problematic  from  the 
start.  (Is it true that our society is inexorably evolving in 
the  direction  of  greater  and  greater  decency?   Who  says
so,  and  how  did  this  particular  philosophy  of  history  find
its  way  into  our  fundamental  law?    And  in  any  event, 
aren’t elected representatives more likely than unaccount­
able judges to reflect changing societal standards?)  But at 
least  at  the  start,  the  Court  insisted  that  these  “evolving
standards” represented something other than the personal
views  of  five  Justices.  See  Rummel  v.  Estelle,  445  U. S. 
263,  275  (1980)  (explaining  that  “the  Court’s  Eighth
Amendment  judgments  should  neither  be  nor  appear  to
be merely the subjective views of individual Justices”).  In­
stead, the Court looked for objective indicia of our society’s 
moral  standards  and  the  trajectory  of  our  moral  “evolu­
tion.”  See  id.,  at  274–275  (emphasizing  that  “ ‘judgment
should  be  informed  by  objective  factors  to  the  maximum 
possible extent’ ” (quoting Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584, 
592 (1977) (plurality opinion))).

In this search for objective indicia, the Court toyed with
the  use  of  public  opinion  polls,  see  Atkins,  supra,  at  316, 
n. 21,  and  occasionally  relied  on  foreign  law,  see  Roper  v. 
Simmons,  supra,  at  575;  Enmund  v.  Florida,  458  U. S. 
782,  796,  n. 22  (1982);  Thompson  v.  Oklahoma,  487  U. S. 
815,  830–831  (1988);  Coker,  433  U. S.,  at  596,  n. 10  (plu­
rality opinion).

In the main, however, the staple of this inquiry was the
tallying of the positions taken by state legislatures.  Thus,