Due to the ever-increasing juvenile crime rate in some nations, the opinion that youth should be punished proportionally as adults regardless of age is warranted by some. I completely disagree with this perspective because adolescents lack the mental readiness and maturity that adults possess and the same level of sentences may lead to serious harm for young people later in life.
One reason why the notion that individuals’ ages should be ignored for penalizing does not make sense is that young individuals have lower cognitive preparedness compared to grown-ups, making them more likely to commit crimes. In other words, adults can comprehensively predict the outcomes of their behavior or preferences; however, as a result of their nature, juveniles cannot fully anticipate the prospective consequences of their acts, becoming more liable to make serious mistakes unconsciously. For instance, a 15-year-old child accidentally caused a wildfire in Antalya while playing with a lighter, highlighting that his intention was not criminal.
Moreover, if teenagers are faced with the same level of punishment as adults, this initiative may result in various destructive consequences for them, predisposing these people to commit graver crimes after release. This is because exposure to other criminals during incarceration may influence youth’s behavior and mindsets, resulting in the adoption of malicious ideas and habits. As a result, recidivism rates will inevitably increase worldwide. Finland exemplifies this with its lowest re-offend rate, providing only psychological support and rehabilitation programs to young criminals over sending them to jail like adults.
In conclusion, I think young people should be faced with diluted sentences rather than equal penals with adults, as they often unintentionally commit crimes and may become serious criminals after a jail term.