Reading the SCOTUS blog summary of the Kansas death penalty argument yesterday, it seems the High Court is considering rethinking the punishment stage issues. There is some support for a more simplistic model than many of the states' punishment stage inquiries. Will we find ourselves needing a new state statute?

I don't know, but using the term SCOTUS always makes me think people are talking about a gland. It makes me giggle. heh heh, he said SCOTUS.

Shuttup, Beavis.

If they uphold Kansas's statute that doesn't necessarily invalidate ours though, does it? Whatever language SCOTUS (heh, heh) decides to put in the opinion praising the jury's ability to grant mercy in a special issue, does that necessarily mean our statute doesn't adequately allow for a full appreciate of all mitigating evidence?

I really don't have any answers but I do think an argument can be made that more people understand mercy than mitigation. As kids, many of us requested or begged for mercy, but did anyone really talk about mitigating circumstances before becoming involved in criminal law? In Texas, the third special issue could simply be an instuction about mercy. Of course other jurisdictions have more complex punishment statutes and the Court may not even be considering any statute beyond those under review, let alone the Texas statute.

i agree that mercy is easier to understand. i always feel that mitigation leads more to a discussion of comparative value of life. i've always thought of mercy as something that's more about the person bestowing it than the person receiving it.