In affirming, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that Simmons generally did not apply to the State's sentencing scheme because an alternative to death other than life without the possibility of parole existed.

"[4] She continued with this line of thinking, explaining "[i]t is only when the jury endeavors the moral judgment whether to impose the death penalty that parole eligibility may become critical.

"[4] Therefore, South Carolina's actions violated Shafer's Due Process rights, and the case was sent back for renewed sentencing determinations.

He agreed that under Simmons, Shafer would probably have to have a new chance at sentencing; instead, he argued that this new criminal rule made by the courts was not proper for the American system of jurisprudence.

He also agreed that the majority decision was the "next logical step of Simmons"[6] However, he argued that the instructions by the judge in this case were adequate under the standards set forth by the Court.