In 1994, in Simmons v. South Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a capital defendant must be allowed to inform the jury of his prospective parole ineligibility, but only where two conditions exist. In 2001, in Shafer versus South Carolina, the Supreme Court again confronted the practice of refusing to inform capital juries choosing between a sentence of life imprisonment or death that the defendant would be statutorily ineligible for parole if sentenced to a life term. In this case the United States Supreme Court held that the Simmons rule applied to the new South Carolina sentencing scheme, thereby perpetuating the rule of Simmons. This paper reviews the history behind the Supreme Court decisions, facts and procedural history, a summary of opinions, and an analysis of the cases. Simple common sense is the argument for an unconditional 8th and 14th amendment mandate that capital juries be informed of a defendant’s parole ineligibility. Jurors should be adequately informed as to the legal framework upon which they must make their decision as to life or death. The protection of the Simmons rule, through the Shafer ruling, can lead to future executions predicated on the arbitrary and capricious basis of easily foreseeable and correctable juror ignorance.