The prosecution of Juveniles as an adult should be permitted

"This is clearly a strawman and does not counter my points about premeditation. You used premeditation and forethought as defining features of of someone being mature, I pointed out that they do not necessitate maturity. In fact, you making this strawman demonstrates that your own assertion that these demonstrate maturity is fallacious. It would be on your logic, not mine, that playing Call of Duty could imply that one is ready to be a soldier."I'm not the one who compared video games to real life. 3. Male musculature and body shape By the end of puberty, adult men have heavier bones and nearly twice as much skeletal muscle. Some of the bone growth (e.g. shoulder width and jaw) is disproportionately greater, resulting in noticeably different male and female skeletal shapes. The average adult male has about 150% of the lean body mass of an average female, and about 50% of the body fat. This muscle develops mainly during the later stages of puberty, and muscle growth can continue even after boys are biologically adult. The peak of the so-called "strength spurt", the rate of muscle growth, is attained about one year after a male experiences his peak growth rate. https://en.wikipedia.org... 4. That's not how that works. You made the assertion that children understand politics better than adults. So you have to prove that statement. Not me.5. Traffiking is never a red herring. If you think it is, I have genuine concerns for you.6. No. The ages of 18 and 21 are high enough to make sure that you're either not a gang member or have been in long enough to be able to fail a background check. "Yes, it is anecdotal."https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...As I have demonstrated, there will be conflicts of interest based on who is hiring the psychologists. This means that rich families will be able to have their members classified as children while poor families will have no such protection. This also leads to the need to ask who to believe when psychologists come to opposite conclusions. The only way to avoid this is to make these assessments before anyone has committed a crime by an independent psychologist such as someone who assesses children in schools on an annual basisOr the 2 parties can simply agree on a non-biased 3rd party.As I close, I'd like to leave with these quotes."Less than 20 years after Thompson, the juvenile death penalty came before the Supreme Court again in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). This time, the Court was asked whether execution of juveniles between the ages of 16 and 18 violated the “cruel and unusual punishments” clause of the Eighth Amendment. A five-member majority of the Court held that it did. Christopher Simmons, the defendant in the Roper case, was seventeen when he committed his crime and 18 when he was tried and sentenced to death. The crime was brutal. Simmons and another boy, age 15, kidnapped a woman from her home, bound her hands and feet with wire and wrapped her head in duct tape, and threw her from a railroad bridge into a river, leaving her to drown. Shortly after his arrest, Simmons confessed to the crime. Three years before the Roper case, the Supreme Court had ruled that the execution of a mentally retarded person violates the Eighth Amendment (Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)). The Atkins decision rested on a finding that mentally retarded individuals have diminished personal culpability, even if they can distinguish between right and wrong. (Culpability means “guilt” or “blameworthiness.”) On the basis of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Atkins, the Missouri Supreme Court held that Christopher Simmons could not be executed because, as a juvenile, he similarly had diminished personal culpability. It set aside Simmons’s death penalty and resentenced him to life imprisonment without possibility of parole" "Justice Scalia’s dissent argued that in other contexts, studies had indicated that persons under 18 were sufficiently mature to make difficult moral decisions, such as the decision to have an abortion. It noted that the majority was making generalizations about young people, while capital punishment decisions require a jury to make individualized assessments of each defendant. And it argued that there was a difference between the willingness of juveniles to engage in risky or anti-social behavior and the decision of a juvenile to commit murder. “It is entirely consistent to believe that young people often act impetuously and lack judgment,” the dissent argued, “but, at the same time, to believe that those who commit premeditated murder are—at least sometimes— just as culpable as adults.” Justice O’Connor also wrote a dissent in Roper. She agreed with Justice Scalia’s opinion that even though juveniles in general might have diminished culpability, a particular juvenile offender could have sufficient culpability to warrant a death penalty. "Taken from here: http://www.americanbar.org...