Majority The "evolving standards of decency" test is a two-step test based on the principle that disproportionate punishment is unconstitutional according to the cruel and unusual punishment clause. The Court says that evolving standards of decency "must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person". The court first considers "objective" evidence to determine if there is a "national consensus" against the punishment. This objective evidence includes,
inter alia, a review of how many states allow the punishment: After reviewing the authorities informed by contemporary norms, including the history of the death penalty for this and other nonhomicide crimes, current state statutes and new enactments, and the number of executions since 1964, we conclude there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape. Responding to Louisiana's objection that more states would have approved capital punishment for child rape if
Coker had not been ambiguous, the Court concluded that
Coker's holding was correctly understood by state legislatures as limited to adult women: The second part of the "evolving standards of decency test" is subjective: The majority opinion left open the possibility of the death penalty for "
drug kingpin activity", as well as treason, espionage and terrorism, these being considered crimes against "the State" rather than against "individual persons":
Dissent In his dissent,
Justice Alito sharply criticized the majority for usurping the role of the legislature. Alito argued that Kennedy's rationale for defining national consensus was flawed, because the previous
Coker decision had "stunted legislative consideration of the question whether the death penalty for the targeted offense of raping a young child is consistent with prevailing standards of decency." In this Alito followed former Chief Justice
Warren Burger, who had dissented from
Coker because it, in his view, prevented a full debate over the uses of the recently reinstated death penalty. In this vein, Alito also argued that "The Eighth Amendment protects the right of an accused. It does not authorize this Court to strike down federal or state criminal laws on the ground that they are not in the best interests of crime victims or the broader society." ==Reactions==