UGH! More Sorry decisions from the Supreme Court...

Supreme Court continues to impose it's liberal values on the country. Personally, if I was on a jury, I may have a difficult time sentencing a juvenille to death. However, it depends on the crime and the nature of the crime. Some of these so-called juvenilles, 17 years old, know what they are doing.
This is, yet again, another legaslative issue. My other problem is that this could be used to try to overturn the death penalty all together. If the death penalty is cruel and unusual for 17 year olds, does it become suddenly less cruel if that guy commited the same crime the next year?
Another point - a juvenielle can have an abortion without parental consent as they are apparently mature understand the ramifications of the decision, but if you are 17 and rape and kill, you were too immature to understand that it was wrong.

WASHINGTON - A closely divided Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty for juvenile criminals on Tuesday, declaring there was a national consensus such executions were unconstitutionally cruel and ending a practice that had brought
international condemnation.

The 5-4 decision, which overturns a 1989 high court ruling, throws out the death sentences of 72 murderers who committed their crimes as juveniles and bars states from seeking to execute others. Nineteen states had allowed death sentences for killers who committed their crimes when they were under 18.

In an angry dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia disputed that a "national consensus" exists and said the majority opinion was based on the "flimsiest of grounds." The appropriateness of capital punishment should be determined by individual states, not "the subjective views of five members of this court and like-minded foreigners," he wrote.