Juvenile delinquency has been a matter of contention, with some people arguing that they should be treated in the same way as adult offenders. Although some young criminals may be mature to grasp the right and wrong, thus must receive the same level of punishment, I disagree with the given opinion, believing a better approach is to educate most young offenders.
Age alone does not always justify the necessity for different approaches to treat younger and older criminals. By the age of twenty, many individuals become more aware of their surroundings and develop better understanding of life than someone, say, in their 16 or even 18. When people at the age of 20 commit a crime, such as violent assaults or premediated thefts, it is often fair to punish them accordingly, since these actions often describe awareness and intent behind them. This makes it a must for law reinforcement bodies to sentence those individuals, regardless of their age, as justice is equal for everyone, and those who disobey the law knowingly should compensate for it.
The same story cannot be said about much younger criminals or those with mental predispositions. Individuals typically reach maturity at the tender age of 25, when they can be fully conscious of situations and able to comprehend the outcome of their actions; but until that stage, teenagers have less self-control and unable to make informed decisions. As for those with genetic disorders, like bipolar disorder, they usually have certain tendencies that trigger feelings of aggression, ultimately harming someone unintentionally. It would be foolish if these teenagers are charged severely as adults simply because they lack the necessary knowledge. This action would be nothing more than exacerbating the condition, because after the imprisonment or other penalties, adolescents’ emotional states can be sabotaged by the prison’s inherent environment, jeopardizing their future lifestyles and overall well-being.
Shifting from conventional methods of correcting criminals could yield unprecedented results. Whether it be rehabilitation practices, re-education, and community service, governments can ensure a just treatment to diverse demographics. A case in point is Norway, where the authority has introduced this system to reduce crime rates among juveniles and help them reintegrate into the society more effectively. These institutions are intended to teach teenage criminals to learn from mistakes and never commit them again, while also providing essential medications for those with particular conditions. By creating educational facility, young criminals are more likely to start a new chapter in their lives after understanding their past mistakes and acquiring new skills during the process.
Granted, some juvenile offenders may deserve harsher punishment as adults due to their maturity levels and understandings, but this does not apply to everyone equally because of the natural human development and certain inherent tendencies. To prevent young individuals from reoffending or losing their confidence, correctional facilities should be prioritized over penalizing, which can reduce juvenile delinquency successfully.