Being charged as an adult

I recently wrote a commentary, published in the Baltimore edition of the AFRO American Newspapers, entitled "Calling It For The Cop." This was my reaction to the police shooting of a 14-year-old suspect during the course of a robbery in Baltimore.
According to the Baltimore City Police spokesperson, the officer came up on a robbery in progress, where the suspect was pointing a gun at the neck of his victim and did not comply with the officer's instruction to put it down. It was only afterward that the age of the suspect was known and the weapon identified as a BB gun.
I wrote -- and have heard no facts to change this opinion -- that I believe this to be good police work and that a plausible consequence of pointing a weapon is to be shot by the police. I added that at 14 years old, the suspect was able to form the intent to carry out his actions and knows right from wrong.
What I did not add is that at 14 years old, he should not be tried as an adult.
Now I am sure there are folks asking why. If he is old enough to know right from wrong, form intent and carry out an adult crime, why shouldn't he be held responsible as an adult?
Well, in order to be held responsible as an adult, you should actually have to be an adult, with all the attendant privileges and responsibilities. At 14 you cannot get a driver's license; are not required to provide for your own food, lodging or clothing; cannot enter into binding contracts and cannot get a job without the permission of a parent or guardian. As a child, a 14 year old is limited in his sphere of influence and cannot vote.
We limit these things because we do not believe people under 18 have matured enough to be held accountable for these privileges. We do not think they are wise enough to make good decision; we think they lack the judgment necessary to be held accountable.
Why does this opinion change when the things they do are bad?
Isn't that really the point after all, of two classifications? Children lack judgment so we expect them to act in irresponsible ways. Well, I can think of little more irresponsible than pointing a firearm at another human being in an attempt to steal from them. True, this action has an adult consequence, but that does not negate the fact that a person we define as lacking judgment -- a child -- committed it?
Statistics show that children have a greater ability to change and transform. When children show they have failed to learn good character, we should find ways, as a society, to correct that. Charging a child as an adult and sending them to adult prison doesn't correct the problem. It does not work to rehabilitate, and it has not shown itself to be a deterrent, even for adults. It is solely a punishment, and overly punitive as we are punishing a person defined by their status as a minor, as lacking judgment and behavior control for -- wait for it -- lacking judgment and behavior control.
When we charge and convict children as adults, we affirm our lack of hope for the future of human beings. We say we see no possibility that as the child matures and gains wisdom, he or she will become a responsible adult and a functioning, contributing member of society. Instead we decide he or she is disposable and toss them aside.
Actions have consequences and crimes deserve punishment. But punishments should not only fit the crime, they should fit the criminal. Charging a child as an adult does not meet that requirement.
Children, as cliche as it sound, are really our future. If we keep tossing them away and using an unequal measure for handing out positives and negatives, we will continue to erode the coming generations and destroy the potential that exists.