Since people threw a hissy-fit that I used the term essay last time, I'm referring to it as a writing assignment. Started this last night and after several instances of distractions, I've been able to come up with two pages of mostly B.S

Topic was "Is the age at which most accused offenders as an adult (most often 18) appropriate for the 21st Century?"

Juvenile justice as we know it today has only existed since the end of the 19th century when the first juvenile court was established in 1899 at Cook County, Illinois. The foundation that modern juvenile justice was built upon derives from a centuries old legal concept entitled parens patriae (Latin meaning “state as parent”) that was used by ancient English monarchs to establish their legitimacy and declare themselves the protector and ruler of all their subjects. Of course this is not the actual meaning used and has instead been refined to the ideology of the court system, as in the state/government, to intervene in an adolescent’s life if deemed they need helped based on living situations and/or delinquent violations.

Under this system, judges have a larger range of options than compared to adult offenders including house arrest, placement in a foster or group home, counseling, community service, and even a verbal warning. In many states, each set an age limit, of sorts, to which an individual would be considered a juvenile; Virginia as an example sets the minimum age an adolescent that can be transferred to adult court at the age of fourteen but the age of all persons to be considered a minor is at eighteen. However, there has been scientific studies that show the human brain does not fully mature till an individual is into their mid-twenties so should we take this understanding and increase the age a person is recognized as a juvenile?
   
In 2011, the University of Alberta Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry located in Alberta, Canada released research that shows the brain (specifically the frontal lobe which is responsible for complex cognitive tasks such as inhibition, high-level functioning and attention) does not fully develop until a person reaches twenty-five years old. What the university’s research provides is debate among professionals on whether or not the age of adolescence should be raised in order to meet what research has established. In doing so, there would be major ramifications across the board as young adults today would not be able to do many things they can now, such as enlist in the armed forces, uses substances like tobacco and alcohol, and buy firearms; but the biggest of all would be a person that is twenty-two very well having the possibility to serve a sentence in a juvenile facility
   
Just because a part of the brain is not yet done developing, that should be no indication to make a radical change in society. From a young age, children are taught as to what is right and what is wrong and this continues throughout life by bringing new lessons that murder is illegal, as is robbery and assault. If people had a hard time understanding that then of course the age of which a person is convicted as an adult should increase, but that is not the case. If people are able to get jobs, buy a home, and take out loans at seventeen and eighteen years of age then there should be no reason an individual that is twenty-one should be sitting in detention center with fifteen and sixteen year olds.