Hello, I’m Zhan Qingyun.

Repeatedly lowering the age of criminal responsibility after particular cases is neither reasonable nor effective. Many suggest an old common-law principle: malice supplies the want of age.

Certain crimes ordinarily require maturity and intelligence associated with a particular age. But if a young suspect’s method, planning, and execution display sufficient intelligence or malice, that wickedness may compensate for youth. In such a case, the age limit can be relaxed.

The principle arose partly because common-law judges have wide discretion to weigh the facts of each case, unlike civil-law systems that more often draw a uniform age line.

Since Chicago introduced the first juvenile court in 1899, such courts have become important in the United States. People under seventeen or eighteen are generally tried there. Criminal law is mainly a state matter, with limited federal intervention.

Thirty-five states set no minimum age of criminal responsibility. Federal law sets eleven, but a child younger than eleven who cannot be prosecuted federally may still face state proceedings.

Juvenile-court rules vary by state, including the upper age for transfer to adult criminal court. Many use eighteen, others sixteen or seventeen; North Carolina has used as low as fifteen.

Minimum juvenile-court ages differ too. Most states set none. North Carolina has used six; California uses twelve, but has no minimum for certain felonies such as rape and murder.

Juvenile courts protect young people procedurally: hearings are usually closed, names cannot be disclosed, and proceedings are less formal. With children as young as six, guardians may attend and courts use plain language and simpler procedures.

They also give greater opportunity for reform. For a young first offender whose crime is not severe and whose parents can guide them, the court may leave no criminal or trial record. These protections are written into law.

Informal factors may matter greatly: whether the child is polite, frightened and remorseful, neatly dressed and apparently well behaved; whether the parents seem respectable and capable of providing a sound home; even whether the child can afford counsel.