Juveniles need to learn that their actions have consequences

The consequences of a crime will remain the same for any victim, regardless of age. Why should the consequences not be similar for a juvenile? This rule may not apply to all crimes, but the current criminal justice system leaves too much up to the discretion of individual judges rather than considering input from a jury. This system allows for frequent bias and bribery, which directly defies the standard of setting uniform consequences.^[1] There is no wrong age to learn that your actions have consequences. If the crime is of legal significance, then the punishment will be of legal significance as well. In cases of severe cognitive disfunction, special considerations may be made, but the knowledge of how to commit those crimes will exist regardless of age, so the punishment should remain the same. Juveniles who are tried as adults are less likely to become repeat offenders, which means that a harsher punishment in the eyes of the law may actually be fairer in the long-term, not to mention reducing the level of overall criminality.^[2] If there is no such thing as age-appropriate crimes, there should be no such thing as age-appropriate punishments.