There is a memorable, actually horrifying, scene toward the end of A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens when two children named Ignorance and Want are revealed to Ebenezer Scrooge by the Ghost of Christmas Present. At that point, we understand immediately what is at bottom of all the misery in the world, and whose fault it is.

“They are Man’s,” said the Spirit, looking down upon them. “And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it!” cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand towards the city.

So, how is a society supposed to respond to these children and all the suffering they represent? Dickens doesn’t tell us, but there is a body of deliberators that may hold the key.

Acting on behalf of the American people, the Supreme Court declares certain actions to be just and unjust. This is a moral distinction between right and wrong. Whenever government—in this case the court—debates whether or not certain actions are lawful, it takes moral considerations into account. Put another way, by formulating and upholding laws, government encourages and expresses a society’s fundamental moral principles.

This week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases, Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida, about whether sentencing juveniles to prison without the possibility of parole violates the Eighth Amendment—the cruel-and-unusual-punishment clause—of the Constitution.

Lots of articles have been, and doubtless will continue to be, written on the topic. It’s a subject that generates an array of emotions, tons of scholarly citations and generous amounts of fear and loathing.

In a recent article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune (“Some Criminals Are beyond Redemption,” Nov. 6) the author is decidedly in the latter camp and takes a particularly dim view of the Joe Sullivan case, in which a 13-year-old boy was convicted of raping an elderly woman. He doesn’t think much of opponents of the harsh sentence either: “Those advocating for the worst young criminals rest their arguments on the premise that an unduly harsh America is willy-nilly discarding children.”

The author further maintains that the rarity of locking up children for the rest of their natural lives justifies the continuation of this immoral practice: “Nationwide, about 0.8 percent of juvenile offenders are packed off to adult court . . . [or] fewer than 1,300.”

Fewer than 1,300? A pittance.

Never mind that the state of Florida currently has 77 such children in adult prisons. And never mind that in his original trial, the now-33-year-old Mr. Sullivan had an inept lawyer and didn’t receive a fair trial. He was never positively identified by the victim (who testified only that “he was a dark, colored boy”) and the only evidence—a thumbprint in the house—could have been left during the earlier burglary (which he admits committing). He was “fingered” by two boys who received lighter sentences for the burglary by pinning the rape on Mr. Sullivan, but this was never pointed out during his trial.

But of course, that is not what the Supreme Court will be deliberating. They are simply going to decide at what point we are to give up on children.

As they do, I hope they keep in mind that behavior is a reflection of childhood training and whether a child commits a criminal act depends on the development of conscience in the early years. That children must be taught right from wrong. And that moral training is exactly what most juvenile offenders do not receive. These children come largely from broken families—often because a parent is in prison—and have demonstrated anti-social behavior from an early age.

They are, quite honestly, morally illiterate.

Studies show that children are different from adults and therefore should not be treated the same as adult offenders. These same studies show that the overwhelming majority of them grow out of criminal activity and are amendable to rehabilitation.

That’s why the answer to crime isn’t locking kids up, especially in adult prisons, where they face unimaginable violence and violation, for the rest of their lives. Instead, we should attack the moral roots of the crime problem as we respond to juvenile offenders in ways that reflect the values of forgiveness, rehabilitation and redemption.

Condemning even one child to 50, 60, 70 years behind bars is cruel and unusual. Do we really want to be a society that tosses out the victims of ignorance, poverty and discrimination? Because when we “lock ‘em up and throw away the key,” we not only give up on the future of these kids—we destroy our own.