> Does society deem control of adolescents an important social function because it expects that adolescents lack adequate impulse control given their destructive potential or does it not see such a gap and expect that they have adequate impulse control for self-containment?
There is nothing contradictory. Society holds children harmless because they're not generally cognitively capable of distinguishing right from wrong. Adolescents are, and are expected to behave. Society acknowledges that adolescents often have problems actually doing the right thing, but doesn't treat that as an excuse that mitigates culpability, as for children. Instead, they tailor punishment on a case-by-case basis to accommodate that fact. (Also, historically, they put adolescents to work, to reduce the avenues for misbehavior. Idle hands and whatnot.)
It seems to me that America and the United Kingdom often try children, not just adolescents, as adults.
I'm sure that's reporting bias, and it only happens to a miniscule proportion of underage offenders, but what is the actual guideline there?
“Children” does not now generally exclude adolescents, but extends to all pre-adults. We have terms that are more specific that do exclude adolescents, but “children” isn't generally one of them (though in certainly contexts the term might have special definitions.)
(Historically, it may havenexclude some or all adolescents, but that's because in most cultures, adult included some or all adolescents.)
> Controlling adolescents is one of society's most important functions,precisely because of the mismatch between destructive potential and impulse control.
Arguably, but then directly contradicted by:
> Society thus expects adolescents to control their behavior
Does society deem control of adolescents an important social function because it expects that adolescents lack adequate impulse control given their destructive potential or does it not see such a gap and expect that they have adequate impulse control for self-containment? Your second statement cannot be a consequence of the first, it is an incompatible expectation.