Second, adolescence is a period of potential malleability. Experiences in the family, peer group, school, and other settings still have a chance to influence the course of development. To the extent that malleability is likely, transferring juveniles into a criminal justice system that precludes a rehabilitative response may not be very sensible public policy. However, to the extent that adolescents' amenability is limited, their transfer to the adult system is less worrisome. Finally, adolescence is a formative period during which a number of developmental trajectories become firmly established and increasingly difficult to alter.
Many adolescent experiences have a tremendous cumulative impact.
Bad decisions or poorly formulated policies pertaining to juvenile offenders may have unforeseen and harmful consequences that are very hard to undo. It is only fair to ask whether or why a developmental perspective is even relevant to contemporary discussions of trying juvenile offenders in the adult criminal system. I believe that it is logically impossible to make the age of the offender irrelevant in discussions of criminal justice policy. A fair punishment tot an adult is unfair when applied to a child who did not understand the consequences of his or her actions. The ways we interpret and apply laws should rightfully vary when the case at hand involves a defendant whose understanding of the law is limited by intellectual immaturity or whose judgment is impaired by emotional immaturity.