The Supreme Court decision to prohibit executions of those under 18 years of age:

It could certainly be argued that there is insufficient state-by-state consensus on the execution of offenders under 18 to justify, on that basis, the Supreme Court’s decision. However, let’s at least recognize that the state-by-state score on the matter is 30 states prohibiting execution of those under 18 compared to 20 permitting it. It is fallacious to consider the laws of only the states that permit the death penalty. Twelve states have deemed any execution of anyone to be unacceptable. This obviously implies that these states have deemed the execution of those under the age of 18 to be unacceptable.

When Justice Antonin Scalia fumes: "Words have no meaning if the views of less than 50 percent of death penalty States can constitute a national consensus,” or when Blankley writes, “In this case, a majority of relevant states approve the practice,” they are being disingenuous. To estimate a national consensus, the relevant states are not the death penalty states alone.

If one wants to argue that 30 – 20 is not a consensus, I think one may honestly do so. But a legitimate accounting must make the 30 – 20 breakdown the standard by which this is assessed, not the 18 – 20 breakdown of states that permit executions.

Can we agree on that?