was permissible under the general court act i believe all court recognized that respondents criminal prosecution was permissible under the juvenile court act it's an army that conclusion part of its holding and in opinion plain and simple that you haven't filed any criminal charges against it right that's correct so the request is really a ruling from the score explosively for this court were to really go for the first sentence of five cash one twenty which says that any minor commits crimes under that one under the age of seventeen may be cheated in a juvenile court act to  and usually try to answer the question that it's also consistent with the general assembly's policies and purposes underlying the act the general assembly gave is for policies and purposes underlying that act which are to protect citizens citizens from chanel con to hold juveniles accountable for those responding over twenty one the determination that in a different corrective process is required for minors no longer applies to him there's no reason to treat him the way the juvenile court actually it's juvenile delinquents  there's every reason to treat him as an adult offender according to these general assembly and this journalist said we state no purposes and usually the general assembly has given us an age of culpability for minors that age of thirteen they did from the time the victim turns eighteen so that means the stay had between twenty five and twenty nine years depending on the victim's age and we don't know the victim's age precisely in this case the state attorney five between twenty five and twenty nine years to me to prosecute these is that it is you know if you cation is inappropriate but if his criminal prosecution is also inappropriate then i think we have to go back to the to that question squarely before the trial court which was was his chin our education appropriate avenue to hold this offender accountable for his cons it would be contrary to their stated purpose of protecting citizens from juvenile crime and again would be inconsistent the statue of limitations if there are no further questions not a post conviction proceeding my client's presumption of innocence remains the court is also well aware of that this case is squarely an issue of whether a twenty one year old or older person can be prosecuted as a juvenile and i had before even the answer i think we have you know we have two things going on here we we have findings by courts that the court didn't have jurisdiction entertain the argument then there's the merits which is inner twined as well so how can a court  was in fact only twenty years old i know that's not the facts of this case but the response to the motion to dismiss is that the client was in fact only twenty years old and that they had evidence to that effect would the trial court have jurisdiction to adjudicate that question in your opinion does it extend to going on to say ok you are twenty one and we're going to put in that final point that's perfect because that's the next question if the court concluded that your client was over twenty one would then not have had jurisdiction  mean it can't have jurisdiction and then not have jurisdiction and that's the point isn't there or is when these courts be right in saying just because it's a title by the way exclusive jurisdiction that there is no i think it has to be because that after all is what we call a juvenile court so i i think to to answer your question affirmatively yes the court would be able to one choir is this a person that fits the definition of  in a case in which there's a statute of limitations defense and they say yes there's no right to be here the statute has run and then you argue the statute of limitations and it goes one way or the other the court had jurisdiction it had jurisdiction but it doesn't lose jurisdiction if if there if there is a statute of limitation that's been blown it can it can either decide to proceed or not proceed based on what facts or  so the idea that there's this huge class of unprosecuted juveniles who got away with something out there i think is is a red herring i don't think that that's the case if this is a case of first impression only if we should decide if we should that should be solved by the judicial branch or something that the legislature needs to pay attention to i don't believe that the legislative intent is manifest yet as opposing counsel does they are the legislature just assume that the these cases should be covered by the act i don't believe that there's anything that's been cited to the court in terms of legislative history that would suggest that they even consider this possibility and the fact that it's a case of first impression reinforces in my mind the notion that it never really was considered i think it's one of those situations that kind of flew under the radar and now we have a case before the court tha case i think that it would be i think the clear legislative intent is that if you're under the age of seventeen you're treated as a juvenile for purposes of prosecution if the age limit of twenty one is actually act as a statute of limitations then we have that the question that that was not interest in the briefs because it didn't apparently come to anyone's mind what is the effect of the different stance of the limitations on the sex offenses with this apparent schedule imitations provision in the juvenile court act again i would recycle the court the reason you haven't been cited in the legislative history on that point is because there isn't any it doesn't appear that anybody considered this possibility of thirteen again culpability may not be at issue but certainly your mental development your understanding is different than it is when you're an adult and that those children who commit offenses should be treated differently they shouldn't have a criminal record they should be allowed probation for an offense that otherwise would be a class x felony but waiting to prosecute an individual know if we've got the logic that's being proposed to the court we can find a lot of people prosecutor does adults for offenses that they committed when they were thirteen they could have had probation for  e in that instance a sixteen year old was was raising that same question i guess what i'm trying to sort out here is why this is just as in at the subject matter here and determine the validity of the liberty of the states but because it was quote among or involved among the general class of cases those presenting a claim under the juvenile court it in decision in jamie p and its decision and in re m age i thought this court was very clear in saying that age twenty one is age twenty one and that's the limit for juvenile court matters and when you ask me that question and i cite you the case to the this court decided in relied on toyotas in the juvenile court context i don't know a better way to answer it i apologize but i  i don't know if i've exceeded my time at this point but i i think to go back to the exclusive jurisdiction matter for just a moment i would again point out that i think that the language of that statute is equally clear that the legislature anyone who was involved in committing an offense before the age of seventeen would be prosecuted under the juvenile court and it is called exclusive jurisdiction in life i think that is a very it's obvious definition of what the legislature intended exclusive jurisdiction i don't believe that this particular fact pattern was anticipated i think it should be addressed but it should be addressed by the legislature because they have left this option this is an answer question in the statutory scheme that is proposed and it's not this court's position to balance those competing interests and say well we think this one or we think that one that really is is primarily a legislative the solution it's an important one but i think that the way the statute is written it's very clear that what happens before age seventeen is to be treated as a juvenile films subject that has been the law in illinois it something that every juvenile court practitioner in the state knows it except maybe the world is flat and i have to acknowledge that before you but maybe the world is round and we just need to figure out determines how you're treated procedurally this would be a much easier question to answer but they didn't and that is a matter properly for the legislature so i respectfully request that the case be affirmed that my client not be allowed to be prosecuted as a juvenile and i think that's the issue before the court i would also suggest that he cannot be prosecuted as an adult because of the exclusivity provision of the juvenile court act and i thank you for your time position respon argue there's a gray area created by this statute where we don't know what to do with these respondents who are these individuals who commit offenses while under certain age but are now over the age of twenty one so there really is no gr area if the general assembly wanted to create some limit on the on the criminal prosecution of individuals who are over the age of twenty one but who are alleged to have committed crimes under the age of seventeen they could have done that they did not do that there's simply no limit on  the criminal prosecution of these individuals the general assembly specifically used the term minor and defined that term in the juvenile court act and use it consistently throughout section five dash one twenty and we should read that that term minor consistently to mean that the limitation on criminal prosecution applies only to minors only to individuals under the age of twenty one the general assembly decided not to limit or restrict criminal prosecution of those under the public interest exception against the general prohibition against rendering advisory opinions and i think this is this is a wonderful example of a case that fits within that exception because there are prosecutors throughout the state who don't know soon be entirely consistent with a charge reading of the first sentence of five dash one twenty to read it the prohibition against criminal prosecution to apply only to minors as people under the age of twenty one