Are there any lawyers here who can explain to a lay person the legal justification behind court decisions such as this one? If there is a legal definition of what constitutes an adult, what is the purpose of it if it can be, to all intents and purposes, set aside? If prosecutors can go to court to get a person legally deemed “adult”, could I go to court to the same end; say, if I wanted to vote before age 18?
Sorry if this is a bit contentious for GQ, but I’m genuinely interested in the specific reasoning behind these judgements, and haven’t had much luck googling; it’s somewhat difficult to find info that isn’t tied in some manner to the capital punishment debate, and hence gives a rather skewed view.
The general explanation I got was the difference between ‘rehabilitation’ and ‘lost cause’.
Children get a benefit of the doubt and leniency because the punishment will hopefully show them the error of their ways. They will then be rehabilitated into society and be good little citizens.
Adults don’t get that benefit of the doubt. Thus, their sentence is mainly to punish.
So if a judge has found that a child is beyond hope or redemption, then they can be tried as an adult. They will begin their time in a juvenile center, and upon reaching the ripe old age of 18 they will be transferred to an adult prison.