Trying Children as Adults in Court

I think it is wrong to try anyone under the age of eighteen in court as an adult under any circumstances. I know that many people will go ballistic upon reading that last sentence but hear me out.

The usual reason given for trying children as adults is the heinous nature of the crime that they are accused of committing. My problem with the whole idea is that it is the child and not the crime that is supposed to be on trial. The child is innocent until proven guilty. Legally speaking it has to be assumed that the child has not committed the crime. It is the burden of the state to prove that he has done what he is accused of. Until the state has done so, he must be assumed to be a child. To do otherwise is to assume his guilt before the trial has begun.

Also, when a child is treated as an adult in court, he or she is treated exactly like an adult during the proceedings. Even an innocent child can easily be torn apart on the stand by an experienced lawyer. Everyone knows that children are not capable of the same level of reasoning as adults. It has been scientifically proven that most people do not have fully developed brains until the age of 25. Children are being sent to fight for their futures unarmed against professional soldiers.

Another thing that is stupid about trying children as adults is that after a child is found innocent they suddenly become children again. They cannot get a driver's license. They can't drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes. They cannot vote. I don't see how it is logical to consider them adults when they are on trial for their lives one day and then treat them like children again when they are found innocent the next.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not soft on criminals. If a child is found to be guilty of a crime then the discussion of whether they acted as an adult or not can begin.