> Being charged as a minor is usually because one assumes minor lack the judgement of adults how does that sentence mesh with: > But if a young offender clear

> Being charged as a minor is usually because one assumes minor lack the judgement of adults how does that sentence mesh with: > But if a young offender clearly acted with premeditated malice How would you be able to determine if a certain case is a result of the incomplete development of the child's brain/mind, versus a 'clear premeditated malice' ? If a minor acted with 'clear premeditated malice', couldn't you always argue that that in itself is a result of the fact that a minor's brain/mind isn't fully developed yet? And was unable to oversee the results of their actions? I understand that sometimes teenagers can look very adult-like, but even if their brains would be fully developed they still lack experience, might still be very hormonal, and are interacting with other undeveloped teenagers on a daily basis. You probably yourself know that however adult you felt like when you were 17, you probably were not. As far as I know we've all agreed upon an age where an child turns into an adult, so I can't wrap my head around why judges would seemingly willy-nilly allow kids to be tried as adults. IDK if you're knowledgeable about this; do they perform assessments off the child's development at all? maybe by a developmental psychologist or something? Or is it really up to the judge?