For the government, it's a simple equation: Will raising the age reduce the rate of youth re-offending? That's what the minister is investigating now.
Many moons ago, I had a friend whose younger brother was going off the rails. He was from a loving, supportive family - good, hard-working people. But his downfall was drugs. He was young, in his early teens, and he couldn't stop. And then, as is so often the case, his addiction began to fuel a life of petty crime in order to fund his habit.
Long story short, he kept offending until he was ultimately thrown in jail. It was a tough jail too. I remember him as a really good kid. He was kind, empathetic and smart - but jail wasn't good for him. He hooked up with a gang and when he came out, it wasn't long before he was back in front of police again, and that went on for years and years.
Intervention, I'm convinced, would have helped him.
This is a really tough issue to tackle - particularly when you consider some of the horrific crimes that have been committed by teens in this country of late. But serious crimes, such as murder and manslaughter, will still be referred to the High Court. That policy will remain in place.
But if the government wants to reduce the youth re-offending rate, then I think we must remove 17-year-olds from the adult judicial system. If you punish kids - because lets face it, that's what they are - by putting them alongside hardened career criminals, then there is surely no other way for them to progress than down the wrong path.
Put them before the Youth Court, and in the long term we might potentially shave millions off our Welfare and Corrections budgets too.
The government is right to look at this - but I think there is only one conclusion. Seventeen-year-olds should be tried as juveniles. The Youth Court is the best place for them.
