The judge is planning to sentence a convicted defendant to death in accordance with mandates of State statute and supportive rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, even though the judge believes contemporary morality requires that the death penalty be viewed as cruel and unusual punishment. The friend challenges the judge to act on his/her personal conviction that State law and Supreme Court rulings are misguided. The judge counters by arguing that judges should not act on personal convictions but comply with the legislature's intentions and the rulings of the Supreme Court. The friend persists in reasoning that in a matter so important as the life or death of a citizen, a judge must act on his/her personal morality even if it means noncompliance with State law and Supreme Court rulings. The dialog raises issues of judicial ethics without resolving them.