Fair enough. But if they are meant to represent the constitution, then their rulings must be based in it. Stating that a punishment is cruel and unusual, by citing the difficulties potentially placed on witness's who may testify in those trials, is straying from the point. They are meant then to assess the crime, the punishment, and whether or not it is cruel and unusual towards the convicted/guilty party. Burdens upon those who would testify are irrelevant, and they fail the victim by trying to protect them. They were not called upon to restrict the rights of the witness, but instead to evaluate the constitutional relevance of the punishment.

And I agree. Though I strongly dislike the Death Penalty and hope that it will one day be obsolete, rapists and child molesters need to be far, far removed from potential victims; either through isolation, execution, or perhaps through a third, as yet unknown method.