Anything that goes beyond the scope of legality is a crime, but not all criminals are held accountable in the same way. They also cannot all be treated the same due to individual variations in the reasons for their actions and reaction to treatment. Juveniles are not and cannot be punished for a crime in the same way as an adult who is considered fully competent to make the decision to commit a crime. Even in such a case, where “brain maturation” and adolescent rebellion play a major role in their criminal thinking, this cannot be allowed to continue and perhaps worsen with time. Minors must be made accountable for their actions otherwise their mental crimes will be expressed freely without fear or understanding of the consequences. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Criminal activity is characterized by the violation of laws in place for the safety and well-being of society at large. To maintain order it was imperative to identify disorder and enact laws based on deviation from optimal ordered social conditions. But things are never that black and white, and so the gray area comes with the concept of intention. "Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea", meaning "an act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty", some mental abnormalities render the individual incompetent in a way that hinders his or her ability to understand the consequences of one's behavior. actions, therefore not criminally responsible. Based on the attribution of "an element of free choice, which makes us, and not Heaven, responsible for good and evil in our lives". which may be removed due to an anomaly or incomplete development. A person is morally responsible if, with knowledge of the facts and in the absence of external constraints, he deliberately chooses to commit a specific act.' “Children, therefore, can act voluntarily, but since they do not have the ability to premeditate their actions, they, like animals and madmen, are not to be held morally responsible. (The Origins of the Right and Wrong Test of Criminal Responsibility and Its Subsequent Development in the United States: An Historical Survey) Balfour Browne defined responsibility as “the knowledge that certain acts are permitted by law and that certain acts are contrary to law, and combined with this knowledge the power to appreciate and be moved by the ordinary motives which influence the actions of mankind.” Sir James Stephen said that no act could be a crime if the person who committed it was unable to know the nature and quality of his act, or that the act was wrong or could not control his conduct due to a disease affecting the mind or defects in mental power. This argument is raised regarding young offenders who are by default legally incompetent, meaning they are deemed incapable of making informed decisions in the eyes of the law. A legal loophole like this only entrenches criminal thinking errors in the individuals who commit the crimes. The reasons are not excuses, the aim is not only to punish crime but also to prevent it and to do this it is necessary to take reality into consideration. For example, in the landmark Nirbhaya Delhi gang rape case, Akshay Thakur, Pawan Gupta, Vinay Sharma and Mukesh Singh were sentenced to capital punishment (2013) for the rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman. One of the main defendants was a minor, he was 17 years old at the time of the crime and was sent to reformatory for three years, themaximum penalty provided by law at the time for those under 18 years of age. They were found guilty of raping the woman on a moving bus, sexually assaulting her with an iron bar and dumping her bleeding on the side of the road, leading to her death a few days later in a Singapore hospital. The young man was considered a victim of his circumstances but it was his own decisions that put him in the situation where he took an active part in a horrendous crime, which is inexcusable. Hence the debate on the impact of incarceration of developing children on whom the consequences could be serious. Some studies suggest that incarcerated people experience mental deterioration and apathy, endure personality changes, and become uncertain about their identity. Several researchers have found that people in prison can be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as other psychiatric disorders, such as panic attacks, depression and paranoia; subsequently, these prisoners find it difficult to adapt and integrate socially once released. Other researchers have found that the experience of incarceration promotes a sense of helplessness, increased dependence and introversion, and can impair decision-making ability. This psychological suffering is compounded by awareness of violence, witnessing violence, or experiencing violence, all too common during detention. In fact, the reconviction rate for people after being released from a past conviction is 41%. For those with four previous prison sentences, the reconviction rate is 57%. And those with six to ten prior prison experiences are reconvicted at a rate of 65 percent, raising the question of whether imprisonment does more harm than good. Imprisonment is not the only answer to criminals, there are five objectives for every sentence issued by the criminal justice system. system, i.e. punishment, rehabilitation, incapacitation, deterrence and restoration. Imprisonment is often for the protection of the public and as punishment for the criminal while trying to restore him or her as a normal member of society. Although the impact of social isolation may make it more difficult for them to fit in and cause the individual to return to crime. Reward and punishment are powerful stimuli that can lead people to change their behavior by unlearning the blurred boundaries of legality if not moral responsibility. Minors should be held morally responsible for their actions, since judgments of responsibility are judgments about the relationship between an agent and an action, and this relationship is not affected by maturity. Instead, it is necessary to make the awareness of the choice clear so that they can make the right choice even when they are not fully matured. The reasons for juvenile delinquency are many and playing the blame game is more than easy. In most cases it can be traced back to the fact that the offender has been abused by his parents or has been influenced by the wrong kind of company. A study conducted by Farrington 1986; Tremblay and Nagin 2005 represents the relationship between age and crime, called the age-crime curve. It forms an asymmetric bell-shaped curve, meaning that the likelihood of offensive activity tends to peak in the teenage years (ages 15-19) and declines starting in your 20s. Loeber and Farrington hypothesized ten reasons for the sharp increase during adolescence, including brain maturation, individual differences in self-control, behavioral risk factors, social isolation, mental illness, life events, and the environment. With all these influencing factors.