The United States Supreme Court has consistently upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty against challenges that it violates the cruel and unusual punishment prohibition of the Eighth Amendment. The Connecticut Supreme Court has reached the opposite conclusion in its analysis of the Connecticut state Constitution in State v. Santiago. What’s going on? How did the Courts reach such diametrically opposed conclusions? Does Justice Scalia’s “Mullahs of the West: Justices as Moral Arbiters” offer any insight into this topic. Please limit discussion to 250 words.
Here there are more reading to enrich your paper.
Buck v. Bell, 274 US 200 (1927)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/200/
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 US 535 (1942)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/
Gregg v. Georgia, 426 US 157 (1976)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/153/
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 US 304 (2002)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/536/304/#:~:text=Petitioner%20Atkins%20was%20convicted%20of%20capital%20murder%20and,sentenced%20to%20death%20because%20he%20is%20mentally%20retarded.
Roper v. Simmons, 543 US 551 (2005)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/543/551/
Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 US 407 (2008)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/407/
State v. Santiago, 318 Conn. 1 (2015)
https://law.justia.com/cases/connecticut/supreme-court/2015/sc17413.html
Treating Embryocide With White Gloves
