What Should We Do With Young Criminals?

This is a very delicate subject. 
It is delicate because juveniles can either be treated as an adult, or as a kid, buy where do we draw the line?  If juveniles were to always be judged as kids, then they would abuse of the advantage of being treated more softly, and how can we judge a 15 year old the same as a 3o year old? Isn't the elder suppose to know better than the 15 year old?
These are very important questions, that don't have a specific answer.
Although we watched two videos about different cases in sociology class, one of them left me with anger towards the justice system. The case of Nathan Ybanes and Erik Jensen. I can understand the judgment of Nathan, who strangled her mother to death, but it seemed obvious to me that Erik should not have received the same judgment as him. He had assisted to it, yes, but he practically passed out. He should have been charged for helping his friend hide the evidence, but that's it. He never should have been sentences to life without parole. As his mother mentioned in the documentary, the whole thing happened in only a couple of minutes or even less. Not only was he not in the state of responding to his friends violence, but the rest of his living life will be spent in jail because of it. It was only a couple of minutes. All of this brings up the question, where should the balance be? How should justice handle them? I know it's not a perfect answer, but i honestly believe that it should be taken care of case by case. We can not generalize all of them. We can not sentence a child to life in prison because his act is as bad as an crime that could have been committed by some who is elder. 
I was looking different cases on the web, when I found this page. It gave multiple facts and numbers about this subject. For example,  did you know that 26 percent of released prisoners who were sentenced t an adult prison before the were 18 did not have their 9th grade. ow can someone be judge without even knowing the basic of life (that is supose to be mainly thought at school) and did you also know that in 3 different states, defendants aged 16 or older are automatically judged as adult?
It kind of scared me to know that i live in a world this crazy. If the justice isnt ecactly just, then how can anything be fair?
The Juvenile Deliquents Act was established in 1908. The government had said that they would try to put themself in the shoes of parents, and try to be 'kind'. It's pretty obvious to me that they failed to do so. If you paid attention to Eriks mom, in the same documentary, the pain she has in her eyes when she was speaking of her son, was so present, so obvious and so real, that you almost felt as bad for her then for her son. If the government really had 'put themselves in the shoes of a mother' like her, then she would not be in such a big amount of pain. They failed to protect the ones who need to be protected the most.
The documentary only gave us three examples, but in all of them, the criminal had suffered from abuse, physical, verbal or sometimes both. If a child was traumatized because of what their own parents did, then this kid needs help. If a minor was able to come to the conclusion, that their own parents did not love them enough to treat them properly, then this young mind needs to be helped, and NOT to be locked up. I honestly find it's only common sense, but apparently the ones in charge have voted against this logic. 
I think Canada should learn from the injustices made in the past, in order to have a futur that is fair, and if so many of these delinquents have committed a crime because of their parents behavior, then who's fault is it really on?