When thinking about issues related to the recriminalization of crime, the idea of ​​binary legal categories comes up often. Lawmakers “tend to view childhood and adulthood as binary categories” (Scott 61). In this way of thinking, adolescence is treated as part of childhood and adolescents and young children are lumped together as legal children and are “subjected…to the same paternalistic treatment” (61). Scott and Steinberg go on to explain that there is a legal line, the age of eighteen in most cases, which signals that an individual is "an autonomous person who is responsible for his or her conduct and choices and who no longer needs special protection. » (62). In this binary thinking, adolescents are considered either to be on the side of childhood or on the side of adulthood. We don't think they fall in the middle of these two categories. In these terms, “lawmakers tend to…describe adolescents either as immature children…or as mature adults…depending on the prevailing policy or agenda” (69). No balance is found when it comes to deciding the legal fate of young offenders. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay This binary way of thinking when categorizing people in terms of legal thinking creates a conundrum. If young offenders are treated like children, it excuses their behavior and shows them no legal repercussions. If these offenders are treated as adults, this ignores the various differences between adults and adolescents. There must be a gray area or a place in the middle that is respected. I agree with Scott and Steinberg's decision that adolescents should be treated more harshly than children and less harshly than if they were adults. Their developmental model “considers that adolescents are responsible for their criminal conduct and should be punished for their misdeeds, but deserve less punishment than typical adult offenders” (19). Juvenile offenders, especially those guilty of violent crimes, should be held accountable for their actions, but should not be immediately brought before a criminal court. these categories themselves should be rethought. I believe that eliminating the binary way of thinking is the best way to deal with young offenders. Adolescents are not children who should be exempt from punishment, but they are different from adults. They have an immaturity of judgment that adults do not have, which affects adolescent decision-making. As Scott and Steinberg described, adolescents are more susceptible to peer influence, are less likely to consider long-term consequences, and have different assessments of risk (38-40). The juvenile justice system must be used to deal with these offenders. Sending them to criminal court to be tried as adults is unfair and ignores the differences between these two age groups. Likewise, treating adolescent delinquents as children who are not punished for their crimes is problematic. This leaves society unprotected and will also contribute to fueling moral panic. Balancing these two issues is addressed by subjecting delinquent adolescents to the juvenile justice system. Dismantling binary thinking in the treatment of juvenile offenders will help us find the best way to deal with these issues..