In some cases the law treats 15 years olds like children who cannot be held responsible for their decisions and must be protected, and in others like adults fully responsible for their actions. Is there a clear and sensible way to determine when each is appropriate?
So, which one is it? Are we looking at innocent teenage victims or incorrigible adolescent demons? Are they grown-ups with slightly less facial hair? Or the lap dogs of adults who brainwash and manipulate them?
One way to reconcile the confused legal decisions about the children of the Texas polygamists and Omar Khadr is to recognize that the legal system operates in broad caricatures when it comes to children, manifesting a disproportionate fear of violent kids as wholly out of control, while treating all victims as though they are incapable of protecting themselves. Maybe all of this legal confusion is just a function of the dual nature of American teenagers, who always somehow seem too old and too young for their own good. Or maybe it just reflects our own uncertainty about whether to believe too broadly that teens are perfect and pure, or dangerous, unguided missiles.
This raises an important question regarding policy in general. There are some areas where we just aren't clear on what we are doing and why, and just make do with what seems best at the time we do it.
