There is an opinion that young offenders should be held accountable for their actions just as adults. While I find this view of some people justifiable to some extent, I also argue that treating both young and mature lawbreakers equally may have adverse effects.
On the one hand, I can understand why a young age should be no deterrent to dealing with criminals. If these juvenile delinquents were easily pardoned in place of receiving strict punishments as adults, they would not become fully aware of the serious consequences of their crimes. Therefore imposing appropriate punishments could prevent them from conducting illegal actions in the future. Besides, young perpetrators usually receive lighter sentences than they deserve, which is an injustice to the victims. In Vietnam, there was a well-known case in which a teenager murdered almost every member of a family deliberately, escaping the death sentence due to being a few months under the responsible age.
On the other hand, I am convinced that juvenile criminals should be tried in a different court from that for adults. Firstly, children are proven not to have sufficient intellectual or moral capacity to understand the outcomes of their misdeeds, so they lack the necessary conditions to be trial defendants as grown-up people. Secondly, when given a second chance, these underage convicts can have an opportunity to successfully rehabilitate and learn a valuable lesson. Thirdly, children can be negatively influenced by some bad role models, which should also be considered to give them a fair trial.
In conclusion, breakers of laws should not be spared of punishments, but I believe young offenders should be dealt with differently from adults.