only four jurisdictions, a national consensus exists that a sentence of death based on the murder of a child under fifteen constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Nelson argues that we should find a categorical restriction on imposing the death penalty when the single aggravator found is based on the age of the victim, using the analysis in Graham v. Florida, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). Graham, however, acknowledges two subsets of categorical rules against the death penalty, one determining that capital punishment is impermissible for nonhomicide crimes against individuals and the other turning on the offender’s characteristics. Id. at 2022. Neither applies here. There is no categorical rale precluding the imposition of the death . 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 33 Admittedly, Nelson would be eligible for
holding that execution of the mentally retarded is prohibited under the eighth amendment to the united states constitution holding that under the eighth amendment to the united states constitution the government may not execute a mentally retarded person holding execution of the mentally retarded constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment holding that the execution of mentally retarded criminals violates the eighth amendment holding that the eighth amendment to the united states constitution prohibits the execution of mentally retarded individuals