LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – Michigan’s justice system might be ready to try out a bold new strategy soon: redefine adulthood until accountability is little more than a distant memory.

The Michigan Supreme Court will hear cases.

The state’s Supreme Court will be mulling over whether 19-and 20-year-old offenders should qualify for resentencing as “juveniles” when they hear oral arguments on four cases in late January. If the offenders get their way, soon young adults who can vote, serve in the military, and sign contracts might soon get the same leniency in the sentencing of their crimes as your average high school sophomore.

MORE NEWS: Former President Jimmy Carter Dead at 100

The high court consistently ruled in other “juvenile lifer” cases that resentencing hearings apply only to defendants who were 18 or younger at the time of their offense. However, with a 5-2 Democratic majority in the Michigan Supreme Court, 19-and 20-year-old incarcerated criminals look to have a good chance of getting sprung early. Regardless, three of the cases involve people convicted of first-degree murder and the fourth was convicted of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.

“Raise the Age” movement.

This legal push stems from a broader “Raise the Age” movement aimed at reforming how the justice system handles young offenders. The idea is that certain cognitive skills aren’t fully developed in teenagers – and apparently, now not even in 20-year-olds, according to these advocates. Never mind that these same “undeveloped” brains seem perfectly capable of deciding where to live, taking out student loans, and holding down jobs.

But let’s focus on an important question: Does murdering someone in your late teens or early twenties really scream “youthful mistake”? Especially if they are convicted of first-degree (pre-medicated) murder?

Advocates who want to change the sentencing rules say it’s about fairness, arguing that these individuals are still forming their identities. Opponents argue it’s about dodging responsibility. (Guess which side the victims’ families are on?!)

Is this a slippery slope?

One has to wonder where this slippery slope ends. Why not extend juvenile protections to 25? Or 30? After all, I’m sure that Democrats who are advocating for these changes could find studies that show the brain doesn’t fully mature until then. For some immature adults, it’s even later – or not at all.

Maybe we should just go ahead and raise the age of adulthood altogether – perhaps to 75? That way, nobody has to grow up and take responsibility for anything that they do.

MORE NEWS: Cold Temperatures to Ring in 2025

Critics worry that this move prioritizes offenders over victims. And critics are right. Imagine being the family of someone brutally murdered by a 19-year-old, only to find out their killer might get a lighter sentence because they weren’t “mentally mature” according to a partisan judge who wants to decrease the incarceration rates or score points with their supporters and future voters.

It’s a hard sell to convince grieving families that the person who killed their loved one deserves a second chance because they are at the end of their teenage years or starting their 20’s.

What about Michigan taxpayers?

Meanwhile, Michigan taxpayers are left footing the bill for all this legal back-and-forth. Resentencing hearings aren’t cheap, and neither are the programs designed to rehabilitate these “juveniles.”

At what point does the state decide enough is enough – and stop trying to get people who deserve to be in jail out of jail? Michigan might be trying to build a kinder, gentler justice system but accountability matters, no matter how old you are.