Sometimes it takes only a small step in the right direction to inspire hope.

In the case of the Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday to outlaw the death penalty for minors, it inspires the hope that perhaps the United States is finally waking up to the idea that government-sponsored murder is barbaric and unethical.

Prior to this decision, 19 states (among them, Texas and Florida, but not Ohio) permitted the executions of convicted criminals under the age of 18. Now, the highest court in the land is restricting states from using capital punishment for this age group.

Though it may be a far cry from abolishing the death penalty completely, it is a start. Moreover, the decision seems to be part of a trend that hopefully, for the sake of human rights, will continue.

Just two years ago, the Supreme Court barred executions for any person considered mentally challenged, on the grounds that such a person would be incapable of fully understanding the depth of the crime.

Is it safe to say that as sensitive, compassionate human beings, we are finally catching on?

Some would argue that banning capital punishment serves only to encourage juveniles to commit more heinous crimes at less risk of “real” repercussions, citing Christopher Simmons (whose case brought about the Supreme Court ruling) as an example.

Simmons is guilty of kidnapping a neighbor, tying her up and dumping her off of a bridge. Because he was 17 when he committed the crime, Simmons allegedly bragged that he would not face severe criminal charges.

He was wrong.

Simmons, once on death row, will still serve a life term. That’s not exactly getting off easily, is it?

While it may be too late for someone such as Simmons, who committed his crime 12 years ago, to receive the counseling and therapy necessary to change him, there certainly is hope for other adolescent criminals.

An effect of this decision is that there were 70 death row inmates who were minors at the time of their crimes who will no longer face the death penalty. These are 70 children who, despite being found guilty of some atrocious crimes, are still just that — children. In Simmons’ case, he was a child who endured years of physical and psychological abuse at home.

These young criminals should be held accountable for what they have done. However, it is not in the best interest of our society to impose the death penalty upon them. We should detain them, counsel them and study them, so that we can learn how to minimize such tendencies in future generations of people.

Many would claim a typical 16- or 17-year-old may be considered mature and intelligent enough to know the difference between right and wrong, and also to be able to accept the consequences of doing something that is undoubtedly wrong.

But even so, for the government to assume the position of sentencing a minor to death row is rather absurd, if you consider that a person under 18 cannot vote, get a tattoo or buy a pack of cigarettes — yet (in some states) he or she can get “the chair.”

There is no logical explanation for why a government should be able to terminate the life of a citizen who is, basically, disenfranchised because of his or her age.

Thanks to the Supreme Court, this injustice is finally going to be repaired.

And it’s about time.

Until Tuesday, the United States was one of only a few countries left in the world — including Iran, Saudi Arabia and China — still allowing for the execution of minors. By abolishing this practice, the United States is able to begin the process of accepting the notion that capital punishment is truly a cruel, unusual and outdated punishment. Finally, we are able to join in on at least a small component of the international consensus on the matter.

Opponents of capital punishment can view the decision with optimism, as it may serve as a hint as to the changing perspectives on capital punishment.

“The lasting significance of this case is that it opens the door to the abolition of the death penalty judicially,” said Jordan Steiker, a death penalty expert at the University of Texas. “It suggests that judicial abolition is a genuine prospect.”

Send comments to Megan at [email protected].