When thinking about issues surrounding the recriminalization of crime, the idea of ​​binary legal categories often comes up. Lawmakers “tend to think of childhood and adulthood as binary categories” (Scott 61). With this way of thinking, adolescence is treated as part of childhood, and adolescents and young children are grouped together as legal children and are “subject…to the same paternalistic treatment” (61). Scott and Steinberg go on to discuss how it is believed there is a legal line, the age of eighteen for most purposes, that signals that an individual is "an autonomous person who is responsible for his or her own conduct and choices and who does not needs more special protection." "(62). When using this binary way of thinking, adolescents are considered either from the childhood side or from the adulthood side. They are not thought of as being in the middle of these two categories. In these terms, “i legislators tend to…depict adolescents as immature children…or as mature adults…depending on the policy or agenda in question” (69) No balance has been found in deciding the legal fate of juvenile offenders to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay This binary way of thinking when classifying people in terms of legal thinking creates a conundrum If juvenile delinquents are treated as children, this justifies their behavior and shows them no legal repercussions. If these offenders are treated as adults, this does not take into account the different differences between adults and adolescents. There needs to be a gray area or place in the middle that is catered for. 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 “holds that adolescents are responsible for their criminal conduct and should be sanctioned for their misdeeds, but deserve less punishment than typical adult offenders” (19). Juvenile offenders, especially those guilty of violent crimes, must be held accountable for their actions, but should not be sent immediately to criminal court. The main question is whether adolescent delinquents should be treated as considered in binary legal categories or whether those categories themselves should be rethought. I believe that eliminating binary thinking is the best way to handle juvenile 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 and this influences the decision making of adolescents. As Scott and Steinberg described, adolescents are more susceptible to peer influence, are less likely to consider long-term consequences, and have a difference in risk assessment (38-40). It is necessary that the juvenile justice system be used to deal with these offenders. Sending them to criminal court to be tried as adults is unfair and does not take into account the differences between these two age groups. Likewise, treating adolescent delinquents like children who are not punished for crimes is problematic. This leaves society unprotected and will also contribute to moral panic. Striking a balance between these two issues can be resolved by subjecting adolescent offenders to the juvenile justice system. Dismantling binary thinking when it comes to juvenile delinquents will help us find the best way forward.