Young people who commit serious crimes such as a rubbery or a violent attack should be punished in the same way as adults. To what extent do you agree or disagree? v.2

Juvenile delinquency is becoming an increase concerns. To keep the crime rate within limits, some people reckon that the punishment for those young criminals should not be differentiated from the adults. As far as I am concerned, the practice is can be done on the condition that they commit crimes more than once. The reason of advocate of the harsh punishment is that it is usually considered as an effective way of deterring the adolescents from reoffending. Besides, it is extremely unfair for the victims if the criminals who committed the major crime escaped from the sentence just simply because they are still young. Without the harsh punishment, moreover, the teenager would not realize the serious after effect of their heinous crimes and leave the victims and their families suffering. However, juveniles do not have the same physical and mental condition as the adults, therefore, the punishment would not have much effect on them. For some of them, meanwhile, they do not have adequate endurance so that the penalty may destroy their whole life and future. Additionally, there is much greater possibility for them to reestablish the value, return to normal life and even shift gear to become the leader of the certain area. Compared with adult criminals, the young ones are more capable of learning from their mistakes. In conclusion, I believe that naïve and young as criminals are, heinous acts should be punished regardless of the age, for the sake the long-term social benefit, rigorous education and chances should be offered to young offenders. However, if only they commit crimes again, there is no excuse for them to escape from the equivalent penalty as adults.