Courts should treat minors the same as adults when they are accused of serious crimes. First, there has to be certain information cleared before deciding if a minor should be tried as an adult. For example: the seriousness of the crime, the suspect's age, criminal background, and mental state. If the minor falls under one of these categories, and it’s clear, then they should be tried as a minor, and given the correct rehabilitation. If not, the decision should be looked into. A majority of Americans agree that, “the mentally ill could not be held responsible for their actions as a healthy adult.” In certain court cases this is ruled true. If the minor is mentally unstable, they should be tried as a minor. On the other hand, there are minors who know exactly what they are getting into, and should be tried as an adult because the intent was there. Although in one case, an influence on the majority opinion gets in the way. For example, in the case Roper v. Simmons (2004), Simmon’s lawyer argued that the same idea (of actions carried out by a minor could not be held “responsible for their actions as a healthy adult”) applied among American minors. In this case, Simmons was not mentally ill, but the majority ruled that he should be tried as a minor because of majority opinion, which was primarily influenced by the national opinion. Now , in another case, Kent v. United States (1966), Kent was 16 years old when he was arrested for multiple counts of burglary, robbery, and