Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 67.0

Cite as:  576 U. S. ____ (2015) 

17 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

fact  robbery)  receive  the  death  penalty,  while  another
defendant  does  not,  despite  having  stabbed  his  wife  60
times  and  killed  his  6-year-old  daughter  and  3-year-old 
son  while  they  slept?    See  Donohue,  Capital  Punishment 
in  Connecticut,  1973–2007:  A  Comprehensive  Evaluation
from 4686 Murders to One Execution, pp. 128–134 (2013), 
online  at  http://works.bepress.com/john_donohue/87.    In 
each  instance,  the  sentences  compared  were  imposed  in 
the same State at about the same time. 

The  question  raised  by  these  examples  (and  the  many 
more I could give but do not), as well as by the research to 
which I have referred, is the same question Justice Stew­
art,  Justice  Powell,  and  others  raised  over  the  course  of 
several decades: The imposition and implementation of the
death  penalty  seems  capricious,  random,  indeed,  arbi­
trary.  From  a  defendant’s  perspective,  to  receive  that
sentence,  and  certainly  to  find  it  implemented,  is  the 
equivalent of being struck by lightning.  How then can we 
reconcile the death penalty with the demands of a Consti­
tution that first and foremost insists upon a rule of law? 

III 
“Cruel”—Excessive Delays 
The problems of reliability and unfairness almost inevi­
tably  lead  to  a  third  independent  constitutional  problem: 
excessively  long  periods  of  time  that  individuals  typically
spend  on  death  row,  alive  but  under  sentence  of  death. 
That is to say, delay is in part a problem that the Consti­
tution’s  own  demands  create.  Given  the  special  need  for 
reliability and fairness in death penalty cases, the Eighth 
Amendment  does,  and  must,  apply  to  the  death  penalty
“with special force.”  Roper, 543 U. S., at 568.  Those who 
face  “that  most  severe  sanction  must  have  a  fair  oppor­
tunity to show that the Constitution prohibits their execu­
tion.”  Hall v. Florida, 572 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 
22).  At the same time, the Constitution insists that “every