The other Kennedy ruling

This editorial from National Review online succinctly explains why Justice Kennedy's presence on SCOTUS is, generally speaking, cruel and unusual punishment.

The eighth amendment of the constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment." Unusual, in that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, Cruel, in that it's exceedingly sadistic. For example, tarring and feathering one of King George III's tax collectors for just doing his job, or lynching someone for having skin pigmentation that doesn't suit you.

Our country, indeed Western Civilization, indeed civilization from the time of Adam and Eve, has long understood and thought it reasonable that certain crimes are so heinous as to be deserving of death, and in such situations, meting death is neither "cruel" nor "unusual." Kennedy has argued that sexually torturing a child is a crime for which a perpetrator should not have to pay with his or her life. What I would do as a father to someone who did such a thing to my child and what the law should allow for may be two different things, so I am willing to lend a (very) small amount of credence toward that view.

However, in view of the fact that we are talking about punishment for a crime that is about as heinous as they come, I am incredulous that Justice Kennedy feels so comfortable in his definitive assessment that such a crime is absolutely NOT worthy of death. I think the court should have affirmed the soverignity of individual states to call the shots on this one.