Update: From the syllabus:
The Eighth Amendment bars Louisiana from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and
was not intended to result, in the victim’s death.
The Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause “draw[s] its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S.
86, 101. The standard for extreme cruelty “itself remains the same, but its applicability must change as the basic mores of society
change.” Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, 382.
Under the precept of justice that punishment is to be graduated and proportioned to the crime, informed by evolving standards, capital punishment must “be limited to those offenders who commit ‘a narrow category of the most serious crimes’ and whose extreme culpability makes them ‘the most
deserving of execution.’ ” Roper, supra, at 568.
...Informed by its own precedents and its understanding of the Constitution and the rights it secures, the Court concludes, in its independent judgment, that the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the crime of child rape.
(a) The Court’s own judgment should be brought to bear on the death penalty’s acceptability under the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., Coker, supra, at 597. Rape’s permanent and devastating impact
on a child suggests moral grounds for questioning a rule barring capital punishment simply because the crime did not result in the victim’s death, but it does not follow that death is a proportionate penalty for child rape. The constitutional prohibition against excessive
or cruel and unusual punishments mandates that punishment “be exercised within the limits of civilized standards.”
Evolving standards of decency counsel the Court to be most hesitant before allowing extension of the death penalty, especially where no life was taken in the commission of the crime. See, e.g.,
Coker, 433 U. S., at 597–598; Enmund, 458 U. S., at 797. Consistent with those evolving standards and the teachings of its precedents, the Court concludes that there is a distinction between intentional first degree murder on the one hand and non-homicide crimes against individuals,
even including child rape, on the other.
Update: The Sex Crimes Blog will be writing about the case all day. It's coverage begins here.