The idea of juveniles charged with crimes being charged as adults is a topic of much discussion and debate. Some will argue that an adult crime deserves an adult punishment while others may feel that youth should be factored in. The trend of trying juveniles as adults really took off in the 1990s as a result of almost every U.S state passing legislation allowing more room for minors to be charged as adults (Kahn, 2010). The argument against trying minors as adults will be made here using the following ideas. Juveniles should not be tried as adults because youth should be considered a factor in criminal hearings, adult sentences for minors is a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, and true adult sentencing cannot be carried out anyway because it is unlawful to issue the death penalty to minors. First and foremost, as stated above, a defendant's age should looked at as a mitigating factor in criminal hearings. When a juvenile is tried as an adult, adult sentencing comes into play and that means mandatory minimum sentences for many crimes. These mandatory sentencing schemes can include life in prison and do not allow room for a judge to use his or her discretion when it comes to the defendant’s age, background, or any other factor (Powers, 2009). To support the idea held by much of the nation that juveniles have a lesser degree of culpability than the average criminal, the Supreme Court ruled with Roper v Simmons case in 2005 that minors cannot be classified with the worst offenders with any degree of reliability (Roper v. Simmons, 2005). In this instance the Court was ruling against the use of the death penalty towards minors but the logic should be applied all circumstances of juveniles being tried as adults. In their ruling the Court gave three reasons for why they felt the way they did (Powers, 2009). First the Court pointed out that juveniles often lack in maturity and have not had the chance to fully develop a sense of responsibility. As a result these qualities can lead to poor, rash decision making without full consideration of the consequences. Second, the Court noted a high degree of vulnerability along with a low amount of control that juveniles have over their circumstances and surroundings. They used this to point out youth as a time in a person’s life where they are the most vulnerable to outside influence and psychological damage (Powers, 2009). The third point the Court made can be summed up in a line of their ruling that stated “the character of a juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult” (Roper v. Simmons, 2005). The scientific evidence that much of the Court’s opinions were based on is the fact that the prefrontal cortex of the brain is the last part of the brain to mature. This part of the brain controls the main functions of reasoning and its lack of development can explain a juvenile’s participation in reckless, poorly considered behavior. Because of an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex juveniles will rely more on the emotional parts of the brain, causing them to act more on impulse rather than strategy or decision-making (Powers, 2009). If one takes these facts into account then it b