Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 37.0

4 

GLOSSIP v. GROSS 

SCALIA, J., concurring 

no easy answers that we rely on juries to make judgments
about  the  people  and  crimes  before  them.    The  fact  that 
these  judgments  may  vary  across  cases  is  an  inevitable 
consequence  of  the  jury  trial,  that  cornerstone  of  Anglo-
American  judicial  procedure.  But  when  a  punishment  is
authorized  by  law—if  you  kill  you  are  subject  to  death—
the  fact  that  some  defendants  receive  mercy  from  their 
jury  no  more  renders  the  underlying  punishment  “cruel” 
than  does  the  fact  that  some  guilty  individuals  are  never 
apprehended,  are  never  tried,  are  acquitted,  or  are 
pardoned.

JUSTICE BREYER’s third reason that the death penalty is
cruel  is  that  it  entails  delay,  thereby  (1)  subjecting  in-
mates  to  long  periods  on  death  row  and  (2)  undermining
the  penological  justifications  of  the  death  penalty.    The 
first  point  is  nonsense.    Life  without  parole  is  an  even 
lengthier  period  than  the  wait  on  death  row;  and  if  the 
objection  is  that  death  row  is  a  more  confining  environ-
ment,  the  solution  should  be  modifying  the  environment 
rather  than  abolishing  the  death  penalty.  As  for  the 
argument  that  delay  undermines  the  penological  ration-
ales  for  the  death  penalty:  In  insisting  that  “the  major 
alternative  to  capital  punishment—namely,  life  in  prison
without  possibility  of  parole—also  incapacitates,”  post,  at 
24,  JUSTICE  BREYER  apparently  forgets  that  one  of  the
plaintiffs  in  this  very  case  was  already  in  prison  when  he
committed  the  murder  that  landed  him  on  death  row. 
JUSTICE BREYER further asserts that “whatever interest in 
retribution  might  be  served  by  the  death  penalty  as  cur-
rently administered, that interest can be served almost as
well by a sentence of life in prison without parole,” post, at 
27.  My goodness.  If he thinks the death penalty not much
more harsh (and hence not much more retributive), why is 
he so keen to get rid of it?  With all due respect, whether
the death penalty and life imprisonment constitute more-
or-less  equivalent  retribution  is  a  question  far  above  the