The Supreme Court, by ruling that the jury must define the sentence to be handed down is in alignment with the impartial jury as stated in the Sixth Amendment. To remain consistent the Supreme Court needs to acknowledge that an impartial jury is to judge the facts of the case as well as judge the law as it applies to the case.
For when the Supreme Court acknowledges the fact as supported by the Sixth Amendment that the jury is to judge how the law is to be applied in the life or death of a person, surely the jury must be judging how the law applies to the person.
When a judge fails to inform the jury that it is to be impartial and judge both the facts and the law as it applies to the case is subverting honest justice. Honest justice cannot be attained void of an impartial jury and instead upholds political agenda "justice".
Comments posted to another thread on the same subject:
It makes me wonder why they [Supreme Court] understand some of the Constitution but not other parts. 21
Selective omission to support political ends/agendas.
IMHO anything that takes power away from activist judges = good. 27
Especially good at doing that is the impartial jury. That is why judges in 1893 stopped routinely telling the jury that they were to judge both the facts and the law as it applies to that case.