Should Juvenile Offenders Be Tried as Adults for Heinous Crimes? 🤔

Should youthful offenders be tried as adults for certain crimes?

• Yes - the crimes they commit should not vary because of age
• No - children must be treated differently

Should juvenile offenders be tried as adults when they commit heinous crimes? At the heart of this debate lies the tension between justice, rehabilitation and moral responsibility. Many countries, including the UK and the United States, maintain a clear distinction between juvenile and adult courts. Historically, this separation has been driven by the belief that those under the age of eighteen lack cognitive maturity. They may not fully comprehend the consequences of their actions, and therefore deserve a system focused primarily on rehabilitation rather than punishment.

However, this distinction becomes deeply contested when the crime committed is one of extreme violence, such as murder or battery. Regardless of the offender’s age, a life lost represents the destruction of human connection, love, and future potential. If the harm inflicted is the same, should accountability differ drastically based on age? Furthermore, who determines that individuals under eighteen are inherently more capable of rehabilitation than those just beyond this legal threshold? If society maintains that all humans possess the capacity for change, then age alone appears as an arbitrary basis for differentiated justice.

Historically, particularly in the UK and the US, juvenile justice systems emerged in response to concerns that children were being over-policed and over-criminalised. The creation of separate juvenile courts aimed to “treat” rather than merely punish young offenders, prioritising rehabilitation to foster a more cohesive future society. There was also a strong concern for the safety of children, as exposure to hardened adult criminals was believed to increase the likelihood of further offending. Yet even within this framework, exceptions have existed. In cases of especially heinous crimes, juveniles have occasionally been tried in adult courts and subjected to lengthy sentences. This raises a crucial question: Does this approach better serve justice, or does it undermine the foundational principles of juvenile justice?

By the late twentieth century, youth crime appeared to take on a more brutal and remorseless character. Cultural representations such as A Clockwork Orange, alongside real-world cases like the murder of James Bulger, shocked the global public conscience. Crimes committed by children were increasingly perceived as senseless, merciless, and devoid of empathy. This moral panic spread internationally, prompting governments to abandon rehabilitative ideals in favour of harsher punitive measures. Many US states lowered the age at which juveniles could be tried as adults, and in some cases, children were sentenced to life imprisonment. The impact of these policies was significant: following a peak in youth crime rates, a sharp decline occurred after these measures were implemented. From a deterrence perspective, trying juveniles as adults appeared to offer a restoration of public safety, albeit at the cost of humane principles.

Yet this shift raises a deeper philosophical question: why does violence among children occur at all? The eighteenth-century philosopher John Locke proposed the concept of tabula rasa, suggesting that individuals are born innocent and shaped by their environment. From this empiricist perspective, youth violence reflects societal failure rather than inherent moral corruption. Factors such as parental neglect, social isolation, poverty, and most importantly, the influence of social media, play a substantial role in pushing young people over the edge toward crime. If society itself contributes to shaping violent behaviour, should the legal system not respond with greater understanding and a stronger commitment to rehabilitation?

Viewing children as individuals with future potential implies that justice should be applied circumstantially, with genuine belief in their capacity to change. However, historical evidence complicates this optimism. In the James Bulger case, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were released after eight years on the basis of their youth and the rehabilitative aims of the juvenile system. Yet Venables later reoffended and returned to prison for possessing and sexually abusing material towards children. This outcome, alongside many similar cases, exposes the fragility of the assumption that those of a young age can be successfully rehabilitated. It also raises the question of who truly benefits from such leniency.

Certainly, the parents of James Bulger do not believe justice was served.

The middle ground

The jury is still out on this conundrum. The issue of whether juveniles should be tried as adults for heinous crimes resists a simple conclusion. Multiple social, psychological, and environmental factors contribute to youth violence, and these must be addressed if long-term prevention is to be achieved rather than a sole belief in rehabilitation. Nevertheless, it remains essential to acknowledge that a human life is irrevocably lost or degraded due to the actions of individuals, regardless of age. While separating juvenile and adult courts may serve a broader societal purpose, punishment must still reflect the severity of the crime. Reduced sentences for children may be appropriate, but this must not occur at the cost of trivialising the atrocity committed. There is, perhaps, no punishment that can truly equate to the loss of a life, but it is clear that eight years for the murder of a baby cannot be morally or socially justified. Courts must take into account the difficulty in improving individuals who have been involved in crime from a young age. As a result, for the benefit of society, crimes must be judged accordingly and not softly.