Eddings v. Oklahoma provided the Supreme Court with an opportunity to decide whether the eighth and 14th amendments prohibit the imposition of a death sentence on an offender who was a juvenile at the time an offense was committed. The split decision held that the death penalty had been improperly imposed in this case. The focus of the majority decision was upon the failure of the trial court to consider the mitigating circumstances attending the commission of the crime, an obligation that the Court determined was clearly imposed in Lockett v. Ohio. As a result of the Eddings decision, State courts must now hear any mitigating circumstances offered by a juvenile defendant subject to the death penalty; however, the question of whether or not the execution of a juvenile is constitutional has not been determined. The Supreme Court may avoid the issue, leaving the problem for each legislature to decide. While many hold the view that juveniles must be held accountable for their crimes and be deterred by appropriately severe penalties, this should not include capital punishment, since such a disposition completely ignores the basic commitment of the juvenile justice system to the rehabilitation and positive development of deviant juvenile offenders. Modern standards dictate that some alternative sentence be implemented for juveniles who have committed particularly heinous crimes. A total of 263 footnotes are provided.