Kansas v. Marsh — Stevens, J., dissenting

Summary

The Court held that Kansas’s capital sentencing statute, which imposes the death penalty when aggravating and mitigating circumstances are in equipoise, is constitutional. The Court reversed the Kansas Supreme Court’s invalidation of the statute. Justices Stevens and Souter dissented, questioning the propriety of granting certiorari when the State is the petitioner and arguing the rule violates Eighth Amendment principles by mandating death when doubt remains. Justice Scalia concurred, clarifying the controlling precedent and rebuffing the dissent's policy criticism of capital punishment.