Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 65.0

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

15 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

The Constitution does not prohibit the use of prosecuto­
rial  discretion.  Id.,  at  199,  and  n.  50  (joint  opinion  of
Stewart,  Powell,  and  Stevens,  JJ.);  McCleskey  v.  Kemp, 
481 U. S. 279, 307–308, and n. 28, 311–312 (1987).  It has 
not  proved  possible  to  increase  capital  defense  funding 
significantly.  Smith, The Supreme Court and the Politics
of Death, 94 Va. L. Rev. 283, 355 (2008) (“Capital defend­
ers are notoriously underfunded, particularly in states . . .
that  lead  the  nation  in  executions”);  American  Bar  Assn. 
(ABA) Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of
Defense  Counsel  in  Death  Penalty  Cases,  Guideline  9.1, 
Commentary  (rev.  ed.  Feb.  2003),  in  31  Hofstra  L. Rev.
913,  985  (2003)  (“[C]ompensation  of  attorneys  for  death
penalty  representation  remains  notoriously  inadequate”).
And  courts  cannot  easily  inquire  into  judicial  motivation.
See, e.g., Harris, supra. 

Moreover, racial and gender biases may, unfortunately,
reflect  deeply  rooted  community  biases  (conscious  or  un­
conscious),  which,  despite  their  legal  irrelevance,  may
affect  a  jury’s  evaluation  of  mitigating  evidence,  see 
Callins v. Collins, 510 U. S. 1141, 1153 (1994) (Blackmun,
J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (“Perhaps it should 
not be surprising that the biases and prejudices that infect 
society  generally  would  influence  the  determination  of 
who is sentenced to death”).  Nevertheless, it remains the 
jury’s  task  to  make  the  individualized  assessment  of
whether  the  defendant’s  mitigation  evidence  entitles  him 
to mercy.  See, e.g., Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 319 
(1989);  Lockett  v.  Ohio,  438  U. S.  586,  604–605  (1978) 
(opinion of Burger, C. J.); Woodson, 428 U. S., at 304–305 
(plurality opinion).

Finally,  since  this  Court  held  that  comparative  propor­
tionality  review  is  not  constitutionally  required,  Pulley  v. 
Harris, 465 U. S. 37 (1984), it seems unlikely that appeals 
can  prevent  the  arbitrariness  I  have  described.    See 
Kaufman-Osborn,  Capital  Punishment,  Proportionality