Arthur Baird was convicted by a jury in an Indiana state court of murder and was *1112sentenced to death by the judge on the jury’s recommendation. After exhausting his state judicial remedies in Baird v. State, 604 N.E.2d 1170 (Ind.1992); id., 688 N.E.2d 911 (Ind.1997), Baird sought federal habeas corpus. The district court denied him relief, and he appeals. His only challenge is to the sentence, and specifically to what he contends was the failure of the Indiana Supreme Court, in affirming the sentence, to give proper consideration to his mental state as a mitigating factor. He does devote a portion of his brief to contending that his confession should not have been admitted into evidence. But at argument his lawyer conceded that, since there is no challenge to the conviction and no suggestion that the confession played a role in the sentence, the objection to the admission of the confession is academic. Baird also does not challenge the Indiana courts’ decision to deny him postconviction relief.
When he committed the murders in 1985, Baird was a man in his late 30s with an exemplary record as a law-abiding citizen, church deacon, and Navy veteran. He lived with his wife Nadine, who was six months pregnant, on a farm that he owned jointly with his parents. At about 5 o’clock one afternoon, he strangled her. Later, in a phone. conversation with Nadine’s mother, Baird told her that he and Nadine wouldn’t be visiting her parents that evening because she was sick. Baird spent the night watching television, writing notes, and periodically lying down next to Nadine’s body and holding it. The next morning he went to his parents’ house on the farm at about 7 a.m. He fed the chickens, brought the newspaper to his father, and received a haircut from his mother. When his mother had finished cutting his hair and returned to the kitchen sink to continue making pickles, Baird picked up a butcher knife and stabbed her to death. He then went to the back door, where his father was just entering the house, told his father that there had been a disturbance, and then stabbed him to death with the butcher knife.
Baird returned to his own house and wrote another series of notes, some expressing remorse (e.g., “I am sick at heart for having done such a terrible act.... The police do not have to come after me. I will turn myself in”) and others containing instructions for feeding the chickens— and burying them after the food ran out if no one wanted to butcher them for his or her own use — and for completing the pickling that his mother had left unfinished when he killed her. He loaded up his parents’ car with food, newspapers, paper towels, and other items. At some point his mother-in-law called to inquire how her daughter was and he told her that Nadine was still in bed but that the two of them were going to leave soon for their real estate agent’s office to close a deal on a 253-acre farm that he had an option to buy. He had thought that the government was going to give him a million dollars in exchange for his ideas about how to solve the nation’s economic problems. This was a complete delusion, in conformity with which he had announced, in the bulletin of his church and elsewhere, that he was going to buy the farm for $575,000. He had boxed most of his possessions in preparation for the move and had scheduled the closing in the real estate agent’s office, at which he was to make a down payment on the farm with a $50,000 certified check. In fact he had many debts and no money, having been recently laid off from his modest-paying factory job. As the date of the closing drew near, Baird was observed by neighbors to have become nervous and with-drawn.
Having loaded the car he drove to a different town, where the next day the police (who had found the bodies and the notes) arrested him as he was watching a *1113softball game. The previous evening (the evening of the day on which he had murdered his parents) he had been observed sitting in the car in the parking lot of a bar, reading a book by the dome light. The owner had been concerned about this odd behavior and called the police, who questioned Baird but didn’t arrest him.
There is no indication that Baird had any financial motive in committing the murders, or that he had hostile or even strained relations with either his wife or his parents. Despite the bizarre circumstances of the murders, two psychiatrists testified that he was sane, at least when he murdered his parents. Two other psychiatrists, plus a clinical psychologist, while agreeing that Baird knew the difference between right and wrong when he committed the murders, thought that he suffered from an obsessive-compulsive disorder that had prevented him from conforming his behavior to his moral perception. Baird himself described the murders to the psychiatrists as motiveless and ascribed them to the pressure of the impending purchase of the farm; he thought the pressure had caused him to crack. He told them that he had resisted the compulsion to kill but had been unable to overcome it. The jury found him guilty of first-degree murder (and feticide) without qualification, refusing to find him either not responsible by reason of insanity or guilty but mentally ill. The correctness of this judgment is not in issue.
During the penalty phase of the case, the jury recommended that Baird be sentenced to death for the murder of his parents but not for the murder of his wife (and fetus). As required by Indiana law, the trial judge made an independent determination of whether to impose the death sentence, but came to the same conclusion as the jury. (Indiana’s death-penalty statute has since been amended, in light of Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), to make the jury’s decision definitive. Ind.Code § 35-50-2-9(e) (1998), amended by 2002 Ind. Acts 117, § 2; Ritchie v. State, 809 N.E.2d 258, 263-64 and n. 1 (Ind.2004). But this change has no bearing on the present case, given the concordance of judge and jury.) The judge didn’t think Baird’s mental condition should be given any weight in mitigation of the heinousness of the murder of his parents. The Indiana Supreme Court disagreed and conducted its own, independent analysis of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances and concluded that the death sentence was proper. The court did not doubt that Baird had known the difference between right and wrong and had known when he committed the murders that he was doing wrong, but the court acknowledged that he had been acting under the influence of a serious mental disorder (604 N.E.2d at 1182):
The [sentencing] judge also declared in his findings that the several mitigating circumstances he found to exist were outweighed by the single aggravating circumstance. The court considered all categories of mitigating factors, finding that appellant had no history of prior criminal conduct, was of a law abiding nature, was an active participant in his church, held employment and provided for his family as best he could, served his country in military service and was honorably discharged, and was generally held to be a person of good character in his community. With respect to the murder of Nadine Baird, the court also found that appellant may have been under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the murder, and that this same mental condition may have substantially impaired appellant’s capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
The court specifically found that there were no mitigating circumstances *1114springing from appellant’s mental condition at the time of the murder of his parents. After review of the record including the psychiatric testimony, however, we are inclined to find that appellant’s mental condition at the time of the murders of his parents is entitled to some mitigating value. The psychiatric evidence supports a determination that appellant has an obsessive-compulsive disorder. The testimony was uncontradicted that appellant sincerely believed that the federal government was going to give him one million dollars for his ideas on how to solve the country’s economic problems, and that he and Nadine would use the money to purchase and equip a 253 acre farm. There was no basis in experience for this belief. At this time appellant had no income, was in debt, and Nadine was pregnant. Appellant was so obsessed with the idea of buying this farm that he set a closing date at which time he was to tender a $50,000 certified check, and as he finally realized that his grandiose plans would be exposed as a mere fantasy to the persons whose derision would be most destructive to him he was compelled to protect himself from them. We find that appellant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance when the murders were committed, but find this mitigating factor to be in the low range. We also find that the mitigating circumstances of appellant’s regular employment, church participation, military service, law abiding nature, and good character in the community each to be in the low range. Appellant’s lack of prior criminal history is a mitigating factor in the medium range. Upon review, we find that these mitigating circumstances as we have determined and evaluated them are outweighed by the sole aggravating circumstance, namely, the murders of Kathryn and Arthur Paul Baird, I, having already committed the murder of Nadine Baird, an aggravating circumstance in the highest range. Appellant’s sentence is not arbitrary or capricious and is not manifestly unreasonable.
The principal arguments that Baird’s lawyer makes against the constitutionality of the sentence are ones addressed to the wrong court. The first (made only at the oral argument in this court, which was too late) is that it is cruel and unusual punishment to put to death a person who murders under an irresistible impulse. The second is that the Indiana courts should have found that the principal mitigating circumstance of Baird’s crimes, namely his mental disorder, outweighed the aggravating circumstance, namely the additional murders. These arguments have yet to prevail in the U.S. Supreme Court, and are therefore beyond our authority to accept in this habeas corpus appeal. The Court has ruled out the death penalty for the retarded and for minors under the age of 16. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002); Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361, 380, 109 S.Ct. 2969, 106 L.Ed.2d 306 (1989) (plurality); id. at 381-82, 109 S.Ct. 2969 (concurring opinion); Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 838, 108 S.Ct. 2687, 101 L.Ed.2d 702 (1988) (plurality). But it has not yet ruled out the execution of persons who kill under an irresistible impulse. And it has made clear that a sentencing court in balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances bearing on the imposition of the death penalty is not required to give any fixed weight to any particular mitigating circumstance. Harris v. Alabama, 513 U.S. 504, 512, 115 S.Ct. 1031, 130 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1995); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 112-115, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982); cf. Wallace v. Davis, 362 F.3d 914, 916-19 *1115(7th Cir.2004). Ordinarily of course a litigant can ask a lower federal court for an innovative constitutional interpretation, such as a new immunity from the death penalty. But that path is closed when the case before the court is an application for habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, ---, 124 S.Ct. 2140, 2147-50, 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).
Baird's lawyer also argues, however, that the analysis of mitigation by the Indiana Supreme Court in the passage that we quoted is fatally inadequate, and this is an argument that is within the remit of a federal court asked in a habeas corpus case to set aside a state court's death sentence. State courts may not refuse to consider mitigating circumstances in capi-tai cases. Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393, 398-99, 107 S.Ct. 1821, 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987); Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 4-5, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986); Eddings v. Oklahoma, supra, 455 U.S. at 110, 102 S.Ct. 869, quoting Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (plurality) ("any aspect of a defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death"). Baird contends that the Indiana Supreme Court committed both a legal oversight and a factual error in its discussion of the bearing of his mental illness on the propriety of the sentence. We must evaluate this contention with due regard for the fact that under the current regime of federal habeas corpus we can set aside a state court's criminal judgment only if (so far as is pertinent to this case) the state court's application of federal law as declared by the U.S. Supreme Court is "unreasonable"-and "an unreasonable application is different from an incorrect one.” Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002).
The claimed legal oversight committed by the Indiana Supreme Court arises from the fact that the Indiana death-penalty statute lists two mitigating factors to which mental illness can be relevant, and Baird contends that the Indiana court failed to consider one of them. The one that he concedes the court considered is that "the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance when the murder was committed." Ind.Code § 35-50-2--9(c)(2). The long passage we quoted from the court's opinion conforms to the language of this provision in stating that Baird "was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance when the murders were committed." The other mitigating factor, the one Baird claims the court overlooked, is that "the defendant's capacity to appreciate the criminality of the defendant's conduct or to conform that conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired as a result of mental disease or defect or of intoxication." § 35-50-2-9(c)(6). The court discussed at length Baird's capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct, and that capacity, as we said, is not at issue. The contention is that the court overlooked the other part of subsection (c)(6)-that "the defendant's capacity . . . to conform that conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired as a result of mental disease. . .
This ground for reversal was proposed at the oral argument in this court, but not in either of Baird’s briefs. The opening brief quoted subsection (c)(6) as well as (c)(2), and said that “the evidence presented at Baird’s trial and at his sentencing hearing clearly established the existence of both statutory mitigators.” But the brief did not suggest that the Indiana court had *1116failed to consider any part of (c)(6). It argued that the Indiana Supreme Court had assigned too little weight to Baird’s mental condition as a mitigating circumstance, but it did not say or imply that the court had disregarded (c)(6) evidence.
Ordinarily it is too late to present a ground for reversal for the first time at the oral argument. But we would be reluctant in a capital case to declare a ground forfeited merely because the defendant had failed to present it in his briefs in this court. For we could easily order the submission of supplemental briefs on the question, to give the state an opportunity to rebut, and then the state would not have been prejudiced by the oversight. But the (c)(6) ground was not presented in the district court either. There Baird argued, much as in this court, that “in reaching its conclusion that [his] mental condition was a mitigating factor in the ‘low range’ the Indiana Supreme Court did not accurately review or adequately consider the evidence below,” and he urged that the case be returned to that court so that the court might “re-weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors.” He said that “evidence as to his mental condition at the time of the murders supported the existence of a mitigating circumstance under I.C. 35-50-2-9(c)(2) and (c)(6),” but in so saying he was criticizing just the sentencing judge’s — not the Indiana Supreme Court’s — -refusal to deem Baird’s mental disorder a mitigating circumstance. He acknowledged that the Indiana Supreme Court had held that “the trial court erred in finding that Baird’s mental condition was entitled to no weight” (emphasis added). He argued that the Indiana Supreme Court should have given it more weight, but not that it had given it no weight or that it had ignored (c)(6). And likewise in his reply to the state’s response to the district court’s order to show cause he argued only that if the court “correctly interpreted” the mental health evidence it would appreciate Baird’s volitional impairments more fully and thus deem his mental condition to be in the high range of mitigating factors rather than in the low range.
What is much more serious than the oversights in Baird’s submissions to the district court and to this court — what creates, indeed, an insuperable obstacle to our accepting the argument — -is Baird’s failure to argue to the Indiana Supreme Court that (c)(6) had been overlooked. Baird appealed to that court twice, first from his conviction and sentence and second from the denial of his application for state postconviction relief. On neither appeal did he argue that (c)(6), so far as it might bear on this case, is different from (c)(2). His briefs in his first, the direct, appeal treated (c)(2) and (c)(6) as completely interchangeable in their application to this case, so it is no surprise that the Indiana Supreme Court in upholding his sentence did not discuss them separately. His briefs in his second, the postconviction, appeal likewise did not complain about the court’s failure, in deciding on his first appeal that the mitigating circumstances of the murders were outweighed by the aggravating circumstances, to discuss the two subsections separately. In fact, the briefs in the second appeal did not cite either subsection. The opening brief did say that “the fact that the evidence strongly suggests Baird’s inability to conform his actions to the law as a result of a mental disease or defect is a mitigating circumstance and one which is entitled to substantial weight.” But it is apparent from the surrounding discussion that the argument is not that the Indiana Supreme Court had overlooked this mitigating circumstance (nowhere, to repeat, does the brief distinguish between (c)(2) and (c)(6)) but that the court should have given it more weight than it gave the aggravating circumstance. Similarly, when he said *1117that “it is unreasonable to ascribe less than ‘substantial’ weight to the mitigating circumstance of his mental health” (emphasis added), he was complaining not that his (c)(6) evidence had been given no weight but that it had been given too little weight.
Even in a capital case we cannot grant habeas corpus relief on a ground that the state’s highest court was not asked to consider. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b)(1)(A), (c); Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371, 375, 118 S.Ct. 1352, 140 L.Ed.2d 529 (1998) (per curiam); Mahaffey v. Schomig, 294 F.3d 907, 914-19 (7th Cir.2002); Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 328-31 (5th Cir.2004). The ground appears, moreover, to have no merit, which may be why it has been urged only as an afterthought and which in any event provides an alternative ground for our decision.
The Indiana Supreme Court had in previous cases regularly treated “under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance” ((c)(2)) and “capacity ... to conform [his] conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired as a result of mental disease” ((c)(6)) interchangeably. See Bivins v. State, 642 N.E.2d 928, 947 (Ind.1994); Benirschke v. State, 577 N.E.2d 576, 581-82 (Ind.1991); Brown v. State, 577 N.E.2d 221, 234 (Ind.1991); Lowery v. State, 547 N.E.2d 1046, 1059 (Ind.1989). This is not surprising (nor is it surprising that Baird should have done the same thing right up until the oral argument of his appeal in this court) when we consider the wording of the two subsections. Their coverage is not identical, because (c)(6) adds inability to appreciate the criminality of the act to inability to conform to the requirements of law, and adds mental defect and intoxication to mental disease, as possible mitigating circumstances, while (c)(2) adds severe emotional disturbance to mental disease. But in a case such as this in which there is no suggestion of a mental defect, or intoxication, or a severe emotional disturbance that is not produced by a mental disease (Baird’s emotional disturbance was produced by a mental disease that the Indiana supreme court identified as “an obsessive-compulsive disorder,” of which more shortly), or an inability to understand the criminality of the act, the subsections coincide. If there is a practical difference in such a case, no Indiana court has identified it, and there is no relevant legislative history to suggest that there is any difference. It is not unusual for two statutes to overlap; this case happens to fall in the area of overlap.
In discussing mitigating circumstances in this case, moreover, the Indiana Supreme Court, though like Baird’s lawyers it did not refer to the (c)(2) or (c)(6) factors by section number, in fact addressed both of them. For in the last sentence of the court’s first paragraph (in the passage we quoted earlier) we read that “with respect to the murder of Nadine Baird, the [trial] court also found that appellant may have been under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the murder, and that this same mental condition may have substantially impaired appellant’s capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law” (emphasis added). This is a paraphrase of both subsections. So when in the next paragraph, in which the Indiana Supreme Court presents its own evaluation of the significance of Baird’s mental condition as a mitigating factor, the court states that it is “inclined to find that appellant’s mental condition at the time of the murders of his parents is entitled to some mitigating value,” the implication is that the court is going to consider the same concept of mitigation, embracing *1118both statutory factors, as the trial judge, and with respect to all the murders, not just Nadine’s. It would be unreasonable to impute to the court the weird idea that Baird’s mental condition triggered both (c)(2) and (c)(6) with respect to her murder but only (c)(2) with respect to the murder of his parents. Nowhere does the court suggest that Baird’s mental disorder might have changed between the murder of Nadine and the murder of Baird’s parents. That would be inconsistent with the court’s depiction of Baird’s mental condition in terms of symptoms that had manifested themselves before any of the murders had been committed.
That the court in this critical paragraph was indeed cognizant of both subsections of the mitigation statute becomes clearer still when the court remarks that “appellant has an obsessive-compulsive disorder” and “was compelled to protect himself from them [his parents and wife, when they discovered that his grandiose plans were a fantasy].” The reference to “compulsive” and “compelled” behavior implies that Baird’s mental disorder “substantially impaired” his capacity to refrain from murdering his parents. The psychiatric literature describes the “Grandiose Type” of “Delusional Disorder,” in which “the central theme of the delusion is the conviction of having some great (but unrecognized) talent or insight or having made some important discovery.” American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 297 (4th ed.1994); see also id. at 421.
The alleged factual error that is Baird’s remaining challenge to the sentence is found in the following statement in the Indiana Supreme Court’s opinion (also in the quoted passage): “Appellant was so obsessed with the idea of buying this farm that he set a closing date at which time he was to tender a $50,000 certified check, and as he finally realized that his grandiose plans would be exposed as a mere fantasy to the persons whose derision would be most destructive to him he was compelled to protect himself from them.” Baird argues that there is absolutely no evidence that he killed his wife and parents because the exposure of his delusion for what it was would bring their derision upon him. But there was evidence of this. One of the psychiatrists asked Baird whether he thought it would be a rational theory of the motivation for his seemingly motiveless killing of his wife that he feared exposure of his fantasy about buying the $575,000 farm. Baird answered that it would be a rational theory, but that it was not his actual motive. The fact that the hypothesis was proposed was, however, some evidence that it was a plausible explanation for an otherwise inexplicable spate of killings. And while Baird denied that the hypothesis was correct, his only explanation of his actions — that anxiety about the farm deal made him snap — was consistent with it. Another psychiatrist, moreover, thought the hypothesis an “excellent” one; “it fits very well.”
This was admissible testimony. If a hypothesis is propounded to a witness and he accepts it, it is no longer hypothetical; it is evidence. But the strength of the evidence hardly matters, since the court did not use it to undermine Baird’s claim to have been acting under the influence of a mental disorder. It is not as if the court had believed that the “hypothesis” indicated that Baird had been lucid when he committed the murders, or as if the court had bought into the trial judge’s conclusion that the murders had been “done in a fairly cold and calculating sort of way.” The court rejected a lucidity theory of Baird’s actions, as is apparent from its references to his obsessive-compulsive disorder, his delusions and obsessions, and the fact that his behavior was “compelled,” *1119that is, committed “under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.”
Insane people do not act without cognition. Their problem is that their cognition is profoundly distorted. To “reason” that one must “protect” oneself from exposure of one’s fantasies by murdering the people one loves is insane — as the Indiana Supreme Court recognized. The “grandiose plans” passage appears in the Indiana Supreme Court’s opinion as evidence not that Baird was sane but that he was acting under compulsion.
Baird himself accepted a variant of the “grandiose plans” hypothesis in the opening brief in his direct appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court. On pages 149-150 of that 244-page brief (prepared by counsel), we read, after the trial court is quoted as having found “that the murders were triggered by [Baird’s] deep seated sense of concern about being found out to be living in a fantasy world,” that
since Art [Baird] was living in fantasy world, as the court found he was, and if Art was willing to kill the parents that he deeply loved to keep that fantasy from being exposed, then there is absolutely no need to resort to the opinions of any mental health experts because the kind of thinking which the trial court claims Art engaged in can be recognized by anyone as being clearly crazy, insane, mentally disturbed and totally irrational thinking. A person who is not under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance or whose capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law is not substantially impaired as a result of mental disease or defect simply does not kill his parents to protect his fantasy world from being exposed.
That is similar to what the Indiana Supreme Court said in the passage that Baird now challenges. Like Baird’s lawyer, the court was trying to explain how Baird’s mental disorder had played a causal role in the murders, rather than suggesting a “rational” motive for his actions or treating fear of exposure as an aggravating circumstance. The opinion is emphatic that there was only one aggravating circumstance, and that was the number of murders.
The court noted that the trial judge had “specifically found that there were no mitigating circumstances springing from appellant’s mental condition at the time of the murder of his parents.” The judge had thought that while Baird might have killed his wife under the influence of a severe mental or emotional disturbance, the fact that he had more than 12 hours to calm down, as it were, yet still killed his parents, made it implausible that when he killed them he was in a disturbed mental state. The Indiana Supreme Court disagreed. But given the trial judge’s doubts, the jury’s refusal to qualify Baird’s guilt by reference to his mental condition (“guilty but mentally ill” was, as we noted, one of the options the jury could have selected, but did not), and the conflicting psychiatric evidence, which suggested that the nature of Baird’s mental condition could not be pinned down precisely (it combined delusional with obsessive features), the court was unwilling to weight his mental disorder heavily enough to outweigh the gravity of Baird’s crime in the calculus of punishment.
No doubt had Baird been sane he would not have killed his wife and parents, if only because he would not have believed that the government was going to pay him a million dollars for his ideas about how to solve the nation’s problems; the delusion seems somehow to have precipitated these rationally motiveless crimes. But he knew he was committing murders and knew it was wrong to do so, and no one can assign *1120a precise weight to the delusion, or the obsessive-compulsive disorder to which the delusion was in some way related, in the mental process that led to his killing his parents. Clearly, his volition, his self-control, was impaired by a mental disease— but how much, in relation to other unknown factors at work in his mind during the period in which the murders occurred, we shall never know.
Judgment in a case such as this is committed to the discretion of the state courts. It is for them, not us, to determine in each individual case what weight to give mental disease that does not obliterate consciousness of wrongdoing in deciding whether to impose the death penalty for murder. Harris v. Alabama, supra, 513 U.S. at 512, 115 S.Ct. 1031; Eddings v. Oklahoma, supra, 455 U.S. at 113-15, 102 S.Ct. 869; Simmons v. Bowersox, 235 F.3d 1124, 1137 (8th Cir.2001); Ortiz v. Stewart, 149 F.3d 923, 943 (9th Cir.1998); Ceja v. Stewart, 97 F.3d 1246, 1251 (9th Cir.1996); Raulerson v. Wainwright, 732 F.2d 803, 806-07 (11th Cir.1984). As an original matter we might think it inappropriate to sentence to death a man as seemingly insane as Baird at the time of the murders. But it is not our judgment to make and we cannot say that the exercise of judgment by the Indiana courts was vitiated by legal or factual errors that are within our authority to correct. The judgment dismissing the application for habeas corpus is therefore
Affirmed.