Teenagers should be tried as adults in court of law.

I truly admire your acknowledgment of the argument's civil process. We share beliefs in the purpose of arguing is to expand one's knowledge, and recognize others opinions and reasoning. It is a rare opportunity I get to argue with intelligent, mindful, and genuinely kind people such as yourself. I would like to begin my response by addressing your debate by paragraph. In your 2nd paragraph you claim I assume teenagers personality is already molded. I actually think the opposite. However the development of the frontal lobe (the part of brain that handles "morality') does not handle personality. Personality is handled by a completely different part of the brain. Science shows the frontal lobe does not fully develop until 22.Meaning 18-year-olds and teenagers both aren't fully developed in reasoning. Furthermore question in this matter, why do we punish them differently? Also, I of course think adolescents are "teachable". In fact I think everyone is teachable, or able to develop through learning, regardless of age. Which is shown in the common expression "you learn something new everyday." I think adults and teenagers think differently, but when they do things like murder it doesn't change the fact it is wrong. If they run through the JV system, when they get out at 18 they have to potential to kill again. This one person could put many people at risk. Being able to manipulate the system has nothing to do with accountability. Being able to manipulate the system lets teen criminals with ill intentions carry out these premeditated crimes. They can manipulate out of harsh punishment, and be put back into the world and put people at risk. If two babies had a lighter anyone with a right mind would take it away. But they would take it away and put it out of reach so they can not get the lighter again. So imagine the lighter is the teenage criminal (potential to hurt you if handled loosely). One of the children is you. The other is me. As we as children pass the lighter back and fourth (us trying to decide what is best for the teen or "lighter"), we put ourselves at risk of being burnt. Then someone comes up, and takes the threat or "lighter" away. This person should be considered the law. The law was the one who took the danger away from those who could be hurt. Trying teens as adult would do just that. Since the JV system doesn't always punish those threats the way they should be punished. I admit to being mistaken on the term "young adults" technically it would mean above teenagers. I meant to make the same point, replacing the term "young adults" to teenagers. Addressing what you said earlier 'childhood trauma" Would fall under the not mentally stable teens, whom I said in the last round are the special exception and it should not apply to them. Though those teenagers should be given help, that help can be given in an adult prison. If they have possible parole the therapist/help given can be left to determine if the teenager is no longer a threat. Until that point, teenagers should be able to receive adult punishments for very violent crimes in order to protect the people. Just because they have a sympathy story doesn't mean we can ignore the crime. Do you really want to take the chance of accidentally potentially not punishing the next terrorist? Do we really want to put others at risk? Much appreciation for considering my view