I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure “teenager” is not a legal distinction for which liability is determined. You are either an adult or not, and judges have leeway to funnel non-adults through an alternative justice system not available to adults.
I’ve never heard of that legal distinction, but I want you to go talk to any parent of a 13 year old and ask how they refer to a 13 year old and the vast majority will call those people a child and also call them a teenager. A ton of teachers will do the same thing.
At age 19 you are still a teenager but in the eyes of the law many times you are considered an adult.
So it is fair to call a 13 year old a child because basically they still are.
At 13 they basically are still children
At 13, they are both basically and literally teenagers, which comes with the legal consequence of being liable for criminal actions.
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure “teenager” is not a legal distinction for which liability is determined. You are either an adult or not, and judges have leeway to funnel non-adults through an alternative justice system not available to adults.
I’ve never heard of that legal distinction, but I want you to go talk to any parent of a 13 year old and ask how they refer to a 13 year old and the vast majority will call those people a child and also call them a teenager. A ton of teachers will do the same thing.
At age 19 you are still a teenager but in the eyes of the law many times you are considered an adult.
So it is fair to call a 13 year old a child because basically they still are.