treats all persons convicted of a designated offense not as uniquely individual human beings, but as members of a faceless, undifferentiated mass to be subjected to the blind infliction of the penalty of death.”). Based on the above analysis, one can glean a clear dichotomy. First, under Supreme Court precedent, the Texas “special issues” sufficiently individualize capital sentencing hearings because the individuality of a defendant’s background is relevant to the jury’s consideration of the second special issue. However, under the Texas evidentiary scheme, a psychiatrist’s “scientific” testimony that a defendant will be a “future danger,” even if given without examining the defendant, and even if based solely on the crime a defendant has committed, 2658, 2670, 125 L.Ed.2d 290 (1993) (<HOLDING>). 4 . In Penry, the Supreme Court held the
holding that a capital defendant accused of an interracial crime is entitled to have prospective jurors informed of the race of the victim and questioned on the issue of racial bias holding that the sentencing structure allowed the jury to give mitigating effect to petitioners prison record holding that the trier of fact must be allowed to consider and give effect to all relevant mitigating evidence holding that a sentencer may not refuse to consider as a matter of law any relevant mitigating evidence holding that the second special issue allowed jurors to adequately consider the youth of an accused murderer as mitigating evidence