This question to me is more than a no or yes answer, There will always be needs for age caps on determining legalities of crimes and so forth...and a crime is a crime and should be handled accordingly , If a 14 year old murders another person , I think more than a slap on the wrist needs to occur, now maybe the Death penalty should not apply for younger people.. but the taking of another s life should be very serious and treated so

A crime is a crime. No matter who commits it. That is the attitude that leads to the question of whether the whole juvenile system should be discarded to only include the one judicial system of criminal courts that tries both children and adults under the same law, with the same rules. This pointer overrides the present juvenile system law completely, which states that juvenile courts are necessary because children cannot be tried in the same manner as adults are tried. Here are a few pointers that'll help you understand why eradicating the juvenile system might be considered as a negative.

On most occasions, you'll find that the kids who have committed a crime are very young, as young as 9 and 10. It is an understood and proven fact that at an age like this, it is impossible for them to have the same mental abilities as that of an adult, to plan and execute a crime and moreover to understand the consequences of it. So all in all, it is due to this 'yet to develop the thought processes of an adult' that demands us to treat them differently.

It is only after their adolescence that adolescents become mature and begin to understand important concepts like society and expectations. During adolescence they are still trying to deal with society and their own inner battles of peer pressure, lack of direction, impulsiveness and the like. At such a time, when they have no responsibilities, and mature or responsible behavior (like supporting a family) is not expected of them, because they lack that power to understand the consequences of their actions and delay their needs, it is considered unfair to treat them in the same way as that of adults.

Psychologically speaking, it is said that there are no 'problem children', only "problem parents". Which means it is the duty of the parents to teach their kids values, morals and the like. Similarly, teaching kids about not handling something that is dangerous or making them understand the consequences of their actions (especially if parents have guns and revolvers in their houses) is the job of the parents. If they fail to do that, the children will not understand it. Simple.

It is also argued that since we take the age factor into consideration when it comes to important issues like marriage, benefits, voting and jobs, and understand that the same cannot be expected of kids, then why is it OK to execute harsh forms of punishments on them in the same way as that done for adults? Every parent knows that punishing a child of 15 and a child of 5 won't be carried out in the same manner. Their punishments will differ. A similar concept gets carried onto the issue of 'Should juveniles be tried as adults'.

i dont think they should because its not right thats why they made juvie so kids go there and adults go to jail.

I don't beleive so. What if it was manslaughter? Would you want your kid to go to jail for accidently killing someone? Juvie would be a better choice. it gives children a small tast of what real jail and/or prison is like and if they decide they want to continue their life of crime or not.

Kids shouldn't be charged as adults in anything, because their "kids".