After committing a felony in the United States, a person's age can determine what type of court he or she could be tried in. For example, if a person is under the age eighteen, then they would ordinarily be tried in a juvenile court. Otherwise, one would be tried in a circuit court. In my opinion, age should not play a role in the sentence of the accused. The reasons for this are; juveniles know the difference between right and wrong, punishments should be equal regardless of age, and the punishment should be a warning to other juveniles.
At an early age, the difference between right and wrong is taught to children. The child knows that if they decide to hit their younger brother, then there will be consequences for their actions. Punishment administered by the parents is an attempt to mold the child's concept of right and wrong. As the child moves toward adolescence, this principle does not fade. Minors, like that of adults, are able to comprehend the responsibilities of the decisions they make. Age does not commit crimes, people do.
If a juvenile commits a crime, then he or she should be punished. Our justice system is based on the principle that if you are convicted of a crime, than you should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Most juveniles receive less harsh and lengthy sentences compared to an adult; even if they are convicted of the same crime. In my opinion, giving leeway to juveniles is unfair and unjust to the victims" loved ones. It is selling the victim short. There should be one punishment, and it should be for everyone.
The lenient punishment juveniles receive, limits the possibility for rehabilitation. Laws protecting juveniles from being tried as adults are setting bad examples for other youths. The peers of the accused may view his or her actions as being tolerated behaviors. If juveniles do not learn their lesson, chances are greater for them to commit crimes in the future.