The supreme court ruled two days ago that juvenile offenders can't be sentenced to death. As another blogger put it, "I haven’t read the decision yet, but I can’t imagine how this could be a bad thing."

Gee, why didn't I think of that. My error was that I did read the opinion. Now I'm stuck thinking it's pretty sketchy.

Certainly it's good news for juveniles currently on death row or heading there. Past that, the majority opinion skates on ice that's pretty thin a lot of the time. Scalia, in a majestically tart dissenting opinion, accurately targets a lot of them.

Roper is being heralded as a victory for death penalty and child welfare advocates. Right now, it is. But ultimately the reasoning behind a case is just as important as the outcome itself, because it ensures that the case remains relevant and applicable into the future, and more pragmatically, is solid enough to resist being overturned by a future set of justices.

Though I support the outcome, I wish the majority had found something a little better to hang their hat on aside from a perceived "national consensus" that executing juveniles is morally distasteful. Roper overturned another supreme court decision that was only 15 years old. Without a stronger footing, Roper's attempt to stake out new territory may only survive as long.

02 Mar 05