Baal has made a decision to accept society’s punishment and be done with it. By refusing to respect his decision, we denigrate his status as a human being.”). 60 . See e.g., Lenhard v. Wolff, 443 U.S. 1306, 1312-13, 100 S.Ct 3, 61 L.Ed.2d 885 (Rehnquist, Circuit Justice 1979) ("The idea that the deliberate decision of one under sentence of death to abandon possible additional legal avenues of attack on that sentence cannot be a rational decision, regardless of its motive, suggests that the preservation of one’s own life at whatever cost is the summum bonum, a proposition with respect to which the greatest philosophers and theologians have not agreed and with respect to which the United States Constitution by its terms does not speak.”); Smith v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1264, 1271 (Ind.1997) (<HOLDING>); State v. Brewer, 170 Ariz. 486, 826 P.2d 783,
holding that a defendant could enter into a plea agreement which called for the defendant to receive the death penally holding that if a plea agreement is breached the district court may either grant specific performance or allow the defendant to withdraw the plea holding that where a criminal defendant has voluntarily and knowingly entered into a plea agreement in which he or she waives the right to appeal the defendant is not entitled to resentencing in light of booker  holding that a merger clause normally prevents a criminal defendant who has entered into a plea agreement from asserting that the government made oral promises to him not contained in the plea agreement itself holding that it was error for the court to enter a modified agreement which materially altered the agreement reached by the parties