Proponents of reforming the juvenile justice system argue that the current leniency toward young adults is fundamentally incompatible with the threat posed by modern extremism. When an individual is old enough to vote and is considered fully responsible for their actions in other areas of life, they should be held equally accountable for serious criminal acts. The case of the Berlin attacker, who was sentenced under juvenile law despite clear evidence of radicalization and intent to commit state-endangering violence, is cited as a failure of the current system to prioritize public safety.
By applying adult criminal law to young adults who commit severe crimes, the state would send a clear message that ideological fanaticism and violence will not be met with educational programs alone. Supporters of this shift argue that the primary duty of the justice system is to protect the public from dangerous individuals. They contend that the existing flexibility in the law is being misused, allowing those who have already demonstrated a commitment to extremist ideologies to remain free and pose a continued risk to society.
Furthermore, advocates for this change emphasize that the legal system must adapt to the reality of contemporary threats. They argue that the focus on the 'educational' aspect of juvenile law is misplaced when dealing with individuals who have rejected the values of the society they are attacking. Moving toward adult sentencing would provide judges with more robust tools to ensure that dangerous offenders are removed from the public sphere, thereby preventing future tragedies and restoring public confidence in the rule of law.