"Applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in the Atkins case to the execution of child offenders leads to the conclusion that such use of the death penalty is unconstitutional too," Amnesty International continued. In its report the organization points out that, in some respects, the evidence of a "consensus" against the judicial killing of child offenders is stronger than that existing against the execution of the mentally impaired.

"The Supreme Court sees state legislation as the primary indicator of consensus,
"Amnesty International pointed out. "Yet for all but a tiny fraction of the past 25 years, the number of states prohibiting the execution of child offenders has been greater than in the case of people with mental retardation." The organization's report suggests that public hysteria in the 1990s about youth crime may explain the relative slowdown in legislative progress on the juvenile death penalty issue.

"What is more, states have executed about twice as many people with mental retardation as they have child offenders", Amnesty International continued, adding that while there are about 80 child offenders on death row, the figure in the case of the mentally retarded was estimated to be around 200 to 300 people at the time of the Atkins decision.