When a child commits a serious crime, public discussion often swings toward the harshest possible response.

When a child commits a serious crime, public discussion often swings toward the harshest possible response.

But this creates a contradiction we rarely confront. Society agrees children lack full cognitive development in areas like impulse control, long-term reasoning, and emotional regulation. These realities shape our laws around consent, contracts, and responsibility.

Yet in moments of outrage, those same developmental standards are quietly abandoned. The child is reframed as fully culpable, permanently dangerous, and undeserving of rehabilitation.

Justice systems were never meant to provide emotional relief. Their purpose is public safety, accountability, and prevention of future harm. Research consistently shows that developmentally informed intervention is more effective than purely punitive responses when minors are involved.

If we decide a child is “adult enough” for irreversible punishment based on emotional reaction, then child protections stop being about development and start being about convenience.

Children are either developmentally protected under the law — or they are not. Consistency matters, especially when the stakes are permanent.