Those who study crime and delinquency also define crime. The definition of crime was greatly expanded when criminologists began asking people to report their own illegal or improper behaviour. It was found that in some of the early self-report studies, like Noyers and Yun, conduct that is illegal acts were as common in teens as in adults. Here the teens are considered as adults and judicial system is recommended to act accordingly.
In some self-report studies conduct was defined as delinquent even when it was so common than almost everyone could be classified as delinquent. At the other extreme, criminologists have classified some conduct as criminal that does not violate existing law. These writers believe that all forms of economic exploitation, racial discrimination, or creation of unsafe or unhealthy work environments are harmful and should be made criminal. Because they define such conduct as criminal, they argue that crime is evenly distributed across class levels or that it is linked to upper class status. Under such conditions it is only logical to consider criminal justice system as a homogeneous authority that would not discriminate between an adult and a teenager as a juvenile and treat them only on the basis of the crime committed. Thus, a teenager should always be treated as an adult and not as a juvenile as being a teen is old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong.
Secondly, there are several problems and complexities associated with the mode that tries adults and teenagers differently. The reform programs in the juvenile justice system need to involve fundamental fairness for all youth who become involved in the system as because it is essential to society that person involved should grow up without any grudge against the judicial system at least in the terms of homogenous nature of justice. This extra care means the loss of extra valuable time from the part of the authority and the spending of extra tax money from the part of the tax payers. Both of these elements are to be avoided.
Thirdly, there is no guarantee that reformation systems would be beneficial for a youth and these systems would direct the offenders back into the mainstream. If the latest problem of religious fundamentalism and terrorism is taken into consideration, then the entire debate of considering teens as juveniles would fail to exist. Most of the religious terrorist activities are performed by teens as they are easily motivated. These teens commit hideous crime on the basis of fundamentalist religious beliefs and there can be no reformation system that would be capable enough to retrieve these teens. These teens are guaranteed to return to their terrorist origins once released under juvenile justice system on the basis of age. Thus, it is logical to treat these teens as adults and the judicial system should proceed in accordance to the procedure enlisted in the case of an adult.
In conclusion, it should be stated that it is essential to recognition of the developmental differences between young people and adults, as determined by sound scientific research because while handling a juvenile it is important to be more considerate than usual. Again, recognition of young offenders’ potential to be rehabilitated and to change in a way the benefits them and society as a whole because as human resource each individual is invaluable and a young offender can ultimately became a national pride or at least a good citizen if handled properly. However, scientifically speaking, the teens are not eligible to be considered as minors or juveniles as their brain functions are well adapted to make differences among black, white or grey properties of an incident unlike the juveniles who are only able to demark an incident in accordance to black or white. Thus, teens should be tried as adults and not juveniles under judicial systems.