(Hat tip: CWY)
That's what the NYTimes thinks. CWY has already established why that's so obviously wrong, so I see no need to do so myself.
What's troubling is that the Times even entertained the thought. It seems as if the Times decided that because they are anti-death penalty, therefore it's unconstitutional. Not that I'm particularly surprised.
UPDATE: Nephtuli breaks down the (likely) reasoning of the Times... and shows why it's wrong anyway.