This does not mean that we should let them off the hook or fail to punish them. It merely means that they should be punished and held responsible within a system designed to treat children, not fully mature adults. At the other end of the continuum, it appears appropriate to conclude that the vast majority of individuals older than 16 are not appreciably different from adults in ways that would prohibit their fair adjudication within the criminal justice system. My view is that variability among individuals older than 12, but younger than 16, requires that some sort of individualized assessment of an offender's competence to stand trial, blameworthiness, and likely amenability to treatment be made before reaching a transfer decision. It is true that a bullet wound hurts just as much when the weapon is fired by a child as when it is fired by an adult, but this argument is a red herring, since we comfortably acknowledge that there are numerous situations where mitigating factors should be taken into account when trying a defendant, such as insanity, emotional duress, or self-defense.
Immaturity is another mitigating factor.
People may differ in their opinions about the extent to which, the ways in which, and the age at which an offender's maturity should be considered in court decisions. One person might believe that a boundary should be drawn at 18, another at 15, and yet another at 13. Nevertheless, ignoring the offender's age entirely is like trying to ignore an elephant that has wandered into the courtroom. You can do it, but most people will notice that something smells foul. Laurence Steinberg is the Distinguished University Professor of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa., and director of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice.