Who gets to decide decency standards?

Columnist Mona Charon writing in Tuesday's Herald discusses some contrasts in two recent Supreme Court decisions.

Her headline suggests that it's "Rule of Law vs. Personal Preferences." I agree with this as a general heading for these cases.

In Louisiana v. Kennedy, "Cruel and unusual punishment" is the crux of the appeal.

She quotes from the majority opinion that: "Evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person, and the punishment of criminals must conform to that rule."

While the case transcript quotes sworn testimony detailing the gory details of the crime, it would not fall within standards of decency to repeat these details here, even by today's standards.

To commit this criminal to the general prison population would indeed be "cruel and unusual punishment" once the other prisoners know the details of his crime. Execution would be mercy.

I have a problem with Justice Kennedy's phrases "Evolving standards of decency."

Just what are these standards? When and where have they been defined? Or is it simply whose standards? Mine, yours or Big Brother's?

Also, as for some kind of "national consensus," who phrased the questions and who tallied the responses to show this "consensus?"

Paul Tait

Mount Prospect