Minors involved in criminal exchange must be punished the same way as grown-ups. I agree with this to some extent and believe that it can be done in some situations; however, a blanket application is not justified. This essay will discuss my perspective in detail and provide a logical conclusion.
The key factor to support is that it can act as deterrent inducing right amount of fear in the minds of the youth. As a result, the chances of them being involved in criminal actions can decrease significantly. Another aspect is that in certain situations, the nature of crime is so grave that leniency on the basis of age can be unjust to the victims. For instance, in an unfortunate recent incident in India, a minor hit two individuals with his car in a drunk state leading to the death of the victims on the spot. If in such cases, age is taken into consideration, it can encourage youngsters to sustain such faults as they know no action will be taken anyway.
However, unfiltered imposition of such a rule can be unfair. First of all, it cannot be ignored that many children commit crime without any clear understanding of the repercussions. Punishing them as brutally as an adult, therefore, might have an irreversible negative impact on their psychology. Apart from this, some of them engage in unlawful acts out of poverty and hunger. For example, multiple cases of theft on teenagers in Indian courts are for stealing food items. Being reprimanded severely like a grown-up in such cases might turn them into hardened criminals instead of helping them reform.
To conclude, severity of punishment for children like adults is a matter debate. In my opinion, this can be done in select circumstances as it can maintain much needed fear and can deliver justice in grave crimes. However, I do believe that this cannot be applied in every juvenile crime as this can have adverse ramifications on their minds leaving little scope of reformations.