Justice Powell, writing for the majority of the Court, stated that requiring the introduction of a victim impact statement at the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment of the eighth amendment of the United States Constitution. Because a victim impact statement can be emotional, the Court stated that its introduction creates an impermissible risk that the sentencing will be done in an arbitrary way. Justices White and Scalia dissented, arguing that the information contained in the victim impact statement is appropriate because it mitigates the evidence introduced by the defendant and bears upon his 'personal responsibility.' The article argues that the Supreme Court erred in formulating a rigid rule for the total exclusion of victim impact statements at all capital sentencing proceedings. The Court's rule ignored the deference that the judiciary should pay to legislative determinations. In addition, by denying the jury the discretion to consider the victim impact statement, the Court unfairly excluded the victim from the sentencing process. The article proposes procedures to make the victim impact statement less likely to produce undue prejudicial influence. 77 footnotes.