Hours after the early-morning fire that destroyed First Independent Methodist Church in East Columbus, Columbus Police Chief Fred Shelton announced that a juvenile male had been arrested for arson, along with three counts of burglary committed at that church and two other churches in the area.

Shelton said emphatically that the suspect, who he would later only say is between the age of 14 and 16, would be charged as an adult because of the serious nature of the crime.

An adult convicted of arson of a church faces a sentence of 5 to 30 years. The sentence for an adult charged with burglary of a church faces a 14-year sentence. It is conceivable that, in this instance, this juvenile could face as much as 72 years in prison if the sentences were to be applied consecutively.

A juvenile convicted for the same offenses would be sentenced to no less than six months in youth detention, followed by probation.

We know far too little about this crime and this suspect to offer an opinion on whether charging the juvenile suspect is the right course of action, but the case does raise an important question: When is it proper to charge a juvenile offender as an adult?

Certainly, there are crimes that demand the offender to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Society demands it. It is an unfortunate truth that some juveniles represent — and will continue to represent — a real threat to the safety of a community. In those instances, the heinous nature of the crime cannot be ignored.

But how often should that standard be applied and what criteria should be used to determine whether it is in the best interest of society to apply adult standards of justice to a minor?

Unless it involves an unspeakable offense, judges and prosecutors weigh many factors in making that decision. Is the juvenile beyond rehabilitation? More broadly, is trying a juvenile as an adult in the best interest of the community and the best interest of the child? Is there something in the child’s background, home environment or cognitive or psychological issues that should be taken into account?

The larger question is this: When does punishment take precedent over redemption?

Our society has long understood that young people do not have the cognitive abilities of adults. Their sense of both right and wrong, their understanding of the consequences for their action, their impulse control are marks of immaturity.

Those distinctions led to the formation of our juvenile justice system more than 120 years ago.

When a young person is charged with a serious crime, we understand that redemption should become a high priority.

But over the past 50 years, a “tough on crime” approach has led to more and more juveniles being tried as adults.

While it’s hard to measure how “tough” that strategy has been on crime, there is ample evidence it has been extremely tough on youths convicted and sentenced as adults.

In 2016, the American Bar Association reviewed 15 studies about what happens to juveniles who are convicted as adults.

What those studies have shown is that juveniles convicted as adults are more likely to re-offend than their adult counterparts. In fact, adults are 16 percent less likely to commit subsequent crimes than juveniles sentenced as adults.

We believe charging a juvenile as an adult should be an exception reserved for the most serious offense committed by those for whom juvenile justice programs have proven ineffective.

Youthful offenders should be given every reasonable opportunity for rehabilitation.

Juveniles in all but the most extreme cases, should be treated as juveniles in the court justice system, with a focus on rehabilitating rather than simply punishing.

That approach not only serves the best interest of the child, but our community as well.

The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.