Furthermore, I want to know the reasons behind not trying juvenile offenders as adults. So often do juvenile offenders getting off with lesser punishment because of their age, while their older counterparts are currently sitting in prison on a life sentence. Regardless of how young they may be, they are almost getting away with the crimes that they commit, and all it comes down to how old they are. When it comes to criminal acts, I do not think that age should be a matter, but clearly others, mainly those that have the ability to do something about it, seem to think that the younger the offenders are, the less they are capable of going through in regard to punishment for their actions. However, I feel that if they are old enough to commit the crime, then they are old enough to take on the punishment. I want to understand as to why the court systems have to contemplate this matter.
In regard to juvenile offenders being tried as adults, I know that, in most cases, they are tried as teenagers, depending on their crime and age. A fifteen-year-old that robs a store either gets time in a juvenile detention facility or probation mixed with community service. A fifteen-year-old that murders someone goes through a long court term as the court system tries to decide on whether or not he is old enough to understand the nature of his crime, therefore being old enough to handle his punishment.
I know that, depending on the age and crime, different court systems decide on different punishments. If someone commits a crime such as murder or rape, their chances of being tried as an adult are greater. Court systems try to rehabilitate teenagers, giving them the chance to improve themselves and their actions, which is why many juvenile offenders are given time in a juvenile detention center or probation instead of prison time - at least for the smaller crimes. I