The case combined two juvenile murderers who had conducted well-planned robberies and killings that resulted in very painful and terrifying deaths. In both instances, the victims' worth to their killers only involved cigarettes, some cash, and miscellaneous merchandise. Both offenders had access to juvenile treatment facilities. One even demanded that he had a further constitutional right to professional help since he was amenable to treatment. The Supreme Court of Kentucky held that he had all the treatment the State could provide. To put him in another juvenile facility would mean that he would again be free to murder or otherwise harm as he pleased. When the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Scalia wrote the plurality opinion which failed to find either a historical or modern societal consensus against the capital punishment of persons found guilty of committing murder at the age of 16 or 17 years. As long as courts provide an individualized analysis of an offender's crime and give offenders the opportunity to change if appropriate, capital punishment will continue to be a possible sanction for offenders who commit aggravated murder, even if they are under 18 years of age. 111 footnotes