However, there are instances within the law that recognize these minor children to be held to adult standards within the court system. Psychology professors Laurence Steinberg and Elizabeth Scott performed neuro-scientific studies that show brain maturation continues into early adulthood (Fagan). The study shows that there are parts of the brain that do not fully develop until after the teenage years. These parts of the brain are the ones that control critical thinking, impulse control, aggression, and abstract thinking. Their discoveries regarding the brain systems shows implications in judgment and impulse control. Steinberg and Scott's studies show that juvenile offenders should not be held to the same adult standard of criminal responsibility (Fagan). If a juvenile offender's brain capacity has not reached its full potential, why are they being placed into situations in which they clearly not ready for? Because the brain is not fully developed in these areas, and an impulsive decision is made resulting in a crime, does not justify charging and placing them into a clearly defined adult situation.
Juvenile courts were created with the main idea of rehabilitation. Studies show that punishment and confinement do not assist with rehabilitation. In most cases it can cause the offender to become more violent and less likely to adhere to the rehabilitation requirements (Krisberg). The idea behind rehabilitation for youth offenders was based on the idea of teaching them new skills, how to cope, seek medical treatment for those with mental illnesses, and for professional help adjusting to becoming a law abiding citizen. Placing these children into adult court eliminates the original goal. Placing youth offenders into adult jail and/or prison reduces the chances of anyone working with them with the goal of rehabilitation. In most cases, children learn what they see. Placing a child in an adult prison allows them to witness situations that any youth should not be a part of.