For many juveniles incarcerated in Pennsylvania’s prison system, life behind bars is reality. But is it fair? Prosecutors say absolutely. Life sentences are reserved for the most heinous crimes, such as first degree murder, they argue. The weight of those acts justifies the incarceration of the perpetrators, removing them from society regardless of their age. It provides the public with greater safety, and provides piece of mind to the families of victims. Others argue, however, that many juveniles have not fully developed cognitively and socially and should, therefore, be treated differently than adults. They suggest that juvenile offenders should be offered more of an opportunity to be rehabilitated into normal society rather than simply locking them behind bars. States from New Hampshire to Colorado have begun reconsidering their laws in recent years. And when a 2007 study showed that Pennsylvania’s rate of locking up juveniles for life is exceptionally high, state Sen. Stewart J. Greenleaf launched a hearing to consider all sides of the state’s youth offenders are dealt with. How should the state treat its juvenile offenders? Is it fair to try them as adults, possibly leaving them open to life sentences? Or should the state impose lesser maximum sentences on youth criminals? Does it depend on the type of crime committed? What other factors should be considered when determining maximum sentences for juvenile offenders?