Some people share the view that in the context of crime, there should not be any differences between the punishments considered for young criminals and older ones. I mostly dispute this opinion, and this essay argues whether it is appropriate to penalize convicts regardless of their age or not.
It is crystal clear that people are not born villains. For the majority of people, growing up brings a more peaceful and more suitable behaving character, because all the ups and downs in life shape their personality gradually. Over time, they learn more and more and eventually become less prone to committing a huge number of flaws. So in the early stages of life, people are not well-experienced to know every possible consequence of their actions, and consequently, treating them in the same way as older people might seem unreasonable, because at least they deserve a second chance.
Furthermore, people are more sensitive at young ages, and every event that happens in their life affects their future life. So heavy fines can result in long-term negative impressions on them. For example, if an eighteen-year-old is imprisoned for five years, after coming out, he becomes a completely different person. He is also more likely to continue being a criminal in order to revenge the government because of ruining the best part of his life. It gets worse when, during the time he has spent in jail, he has become familiar with other people who might be, for example, murderers or drug dealers, because this kind of friendship is a recipe for disaster for someone whose personality and behaviors can be easily changed by others.
In conclusion, much as all the people who have committed crimes should be punished in a suitable way, older ones should pay more than young ones, especially teenagers, psychologically. Moreover, younger ones should be treated with caution as their personality is less stable. So if I were a judge, I would take age as one of the most important features during my decision-making process.