That doesn't say that adolescents can't distinguish right from wrong (which is what I said). That says that adolescents often lack the impulse control to do the right thing consistently.

To give you an example. My six year old doesn't really understand why she shouldn't eat junk food. She can kind of understand that she shouldn't do it, but the "why" is beyond her. Thus if she eats a bunch of junk food, it's not her fault, it's my fault. "Children" are held harmless because they lack a basic prerequisite for culpability: the ability to truly distinguish between right and wrong.

Having the cognitive ability to distinguish right from wrong, but lacking the impulse control to do the right thing is different. I know I shouldn't eat junk food, and I'm fully capable of understanding why. But I have trouble doing the right thing. If I eat a bunch of junk food, it's my fault. I am culpable, not my mom.

Calling someone a "child" is to negate their culpability. That's not an appropriate label for an adolescent. If lacking impulse control negated culpability, I'd suspect you'd find that a lot of adult criminals had poor impulse control. That doesn't make them "children." (Contrarywise, when it is demonstrated that an adult lacks the capacity to distinguish right from wrong, that does negate their culpability, in the same manner as for children.)