The answer, of course, is yes.
But the dishonesty of the judges is what shines through in this decision. As McCarthy points out,
Wouldn’t it be refreshingly honest if activist justices just bluntly us: “We don’t like the death penalty and we can stop it because there are five of us.” Sure, it would be tyrannical, but at least it would be accurate, and not nearly as nauseating as what passes for reasoning in these cases.
I wonder if the same kind of perverse reasoning will apply one day and would not give the death penalty to someone who takes justice into their own hands and kills a child rapist rather than have the rapist go through the system and benefit from the Justices’ “reasoning”.