Some people argue that teenagers who commit serious crimes, such as armed robbery or violent assault, should receive the same punishment as adult offenders. Although I accept that the most dangerous young criminals must be kept away from the public, I largely disagree with this view, because treating children as adults ignores both their stage of development and their capacity to change.
The main reason for my position is that adolescents are not fully mature decision-makers. Teenagers are far more likely than adults to act impulsively, to underestimate risk and to give in to pressure from friends or older gang members. A sixteen-year-old who joins a robbery to win the approval of an older group has not usually weighed the consequences in the way an experienced adult criminal would. Holding both to the same standard of responsibility therefore seems unjust, even when the harm caused is equally serious.
Furthermore, sending young offenders to adult prisons is likely to make them more dangerous rather than less. In such institutions, they mix with hardened criminals, lose access to schooling and often leave with no qualifications and a network of criminal contacts. By contrast, youth justice systems that combine secure custody with education, counselling and close supervision after release give young people a realistic chance of building a lawful life. A teenager who completes vocational training in a youth facility may leave with a trade, whereas the same person in an adult prison might leave with nothing but a criminal identity.
That said, a small number of cases, particularly premeditated killings by older teenagers, may justify long sentences to protect the public. In general, however, young offenders should be held accountable through a separate system designed to reform them, since this serves both the individual and society far better than adult punishment.