— Families of murder victims deserve to voice their opinions on the penalty for convicted murderers.

Oklahoma courts have been allowing family members to address the court on whether the convicted murderer should be put to death.

That’s contrary to a United States Supreme Court precedent “that specifically prohibits eliciting from a relative of the victim an opinion as to whether the death penalty should be imposed,” a federal appeals court judge stated in a dissenting opinion in a recent appeal of a murder conviction.

The practice of allowing families to voice their opinion is a violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights in state death-penalty cases, the judge states.

Bear in mind that the victim impact statements come after a conviction, not before.

A jury already has determined the guilt of the defendant.

The jury is allowed to weigh the loss the family feels in their penalty deliberations.

We feel it is highly unlikely a juror is going to put a convicted murderer to death solely on the passion of the victim’s family.

It is much more likely that a juror has weighed the evidence that proves a defendant’s guilt. It is much more likely a juror has in mind the nature of the murder before the victim impact statements are heard.

A family member who says the victim would not have wanted a life taken in their name would be seriously considered.

The law of the land should be followed. If the Supreme Court has set precedent that the family’s opinion on the death penalty should not be heard — then it should not be heard.

State courts could be putting at risk death sentences by ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court.

Abiding by the force of law, however, does not change the fact that we believe the victims’ families should be heard on the matter.

A convicted murderer has had their day in court. They have been determined guilty by a jury of their peers.

The jury should be allowed to hear how the family feels — including opinions on the death penalty.

The Supreme Court’s precedent was a mistake.