For less severe offenses (vandalism, shoplifting, etc.), I agree that they shouldn 't be tried as an adult. These can be considered as "prank" crimes, and while damage still is incurred, it is not that bad and can easily be compensated for.
Other crimes are much more sever and go way beyond a prank. Murder and rape are a couple examples. There is no compensation for these. How much money pays for a father not being able to support his family, walk his daughter down the aisle at her wedding, be a grandfather, and so on?
And the issue of their brains not being fully developed is true. But that would apply for the "prank" crimes, not the serious ones. They very likely may not fully understand the consequences beyond what they can be punished for simple crimes, but even a 5 year old knows that when you murder someone , they don 't come back.
…show more content…
However, their age should be taken into account when sentencing. The US Supreme Court has ruled that people who commit murder as a juvenile cannot be sentenced to death, even if their trial takes place after they turn 18. I agree with this. But the controversy now is if they get life without parole. I don 't think they should. They should still be eligible for life in prison, but they should also be given the chance to show they have rehabilitated and get parole much later in