I have substantial qualms about the death penalty, but I cannot see how today’s decision is “good” in any sense of the word. As a legal opinion, it’s outrageous. It replaces representative government and the rule of law with the moral sense of five folks in robes.

Justice Scalia nails it when he writes in dissent:

The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation’s moral standards–and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.

I’d also say that those who think the decision makes for good policy — that is, that a categorical rule barring capital punishment for crimes committed before the age of 18 while allowing the death penalty for adults — should read this amicus brief submitted by Alabama and five other states. If the death penalty is permissible — and, as a constitutional matter, it clearly is — then there is no basis for a categorical age-based rule like the one created today.