I defer to your legal expertise, but that begs the question: Why should a defendant / convicted criminal have the right to present arguments after conviction in order to affect their sentence? After all, remorse comes after the guilty verdict; I would think that knowing that death is on the table would seem a strong incentive to repent, ergo how can a convicted killer beg for mercy after the fact? Is remorse relevent if it comes at a later date (or with age and wisdom)?
As to my second question and Justice Scalia's Dissent, I'd like to say that great minds think alike, but more likely it's a case of a blind squirrel finding an acorn now and then. Thanks for the consideration.
Everyone in every court who is subject to the death penalty is allowed by law to make whatever arguments they and/or their counsel think may cause the decision-maker (in this case the jury) to decide not to impose the death penalty. Most recently, arguments like these were covered
ad nausium in the Scott Peterson case.
Such defendants almost never express remorse. That would be an admission that they committed the crime, and would undercut the interminable appeals that these people routinely engage in. Presence or absence of remorse had nothing to do with the Simmons case in the Supreme Court.
Bottom line: five of the Justices of the Court violated their oaths of office by savaging the Constitution.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "Death in a Courtly Manner"