British jurists have suggested that the Bill of Rights of 1689, a document relevant to the interpretation of our own Constitution, may forbid, as cruel and unusual, significantly lesser delays. Riley v. Attorney Gen. of Jamaica, [1983] 1 App. Cas. 719, 734-735 (P. C. 1982) (Lord Scarman, joined by Lord Brightman, dissenting). See generally Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957, 966-967 (1991) (Scaua, J., concurring in judgment) (on the relevance of the 1689 Bill of Rights to the interpretation of our own Constitution). Finally, a reasoned answer to the “delay” question could help to ease the practical anomaly created when foreign courts refuse to extradite capital defendants to America for fear of undue delay in execution. See Soering v. United Kingdom, 11 Eur. H. R. Rep. 439 (1989) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, and for the additional
holding that it is a violation of the fourth amendment for police to bring members of the media or other third parties into a home during the execution of a warrant when the presence of third parties in the home was not in aid of the execution of the warrant holding that the extradition of a capital defendant to america would be a violation of article 3 of the european convention on human rights primarily because of the risk of delay before execution holding that when determining whether a delay in prosecution violates a defendants right to a speedy trial courts must consider the length of the delay the reason for the delay whether the defendant asserted his rights and the resulting prejudice to the defendant holding that a stay of a capital prisoners execution is substantive holding that execution of a defendant who commits a capital crime while under the age of eighteen is prohibited by the eighth amendment