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 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.