Do you agree with this analysis on the importance of international precedent (i.e. decisions by courts outside of the US)? Why or why not?

I believe a judge should use precedent cases when considering a sentence. I think that is fair. I do understand that as we evolve, so do crimes, and so should punishments. Sometimes when searching for cases to rival the case in question, there are none. That creates an opportunity for a judge to look for international precedent. While I think that is acceptable, I do not think it should be the guiding source to a decision. I know it is being used more often and in the case of Atkins v. Virginia, I agree with the ultimate decision. I am not sure why our courts had to seek guidance on this though, it seems like the a logically humane decision. This court case resulted in a ruling that prohibited the execution of the mentally retarded. In this case the Court noted that "within the world community, the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by mentally retarded offenders is overwhelmingly disapproved".

I also believe that the United States should worry about the "disapproval by other nations and people" but focus on what is the best punishment for the crime in question.

So what I am saying is, I believe international precedent can be referred to as an opinion of sorts, but it should not be the deciding factor. If the crime calls for capital punishment then it is up to guidelines within the state and the right of the judge to decide that, regardless of international cases.