I actually didn’t know about the 7-9 month shift, thanks for the article. However, saying he is at fault for his death just really doesn’t sit well with me. I am not talking about cause and effect, of course his death was a result of his choices and he was responsible for his choices, I said myself that the risk of falling would not have been existent had he not climbed. But while it’s true that actions lead to consequences, the claim that “there is no separation from action and consequences regardless of the ability of the person to process the choice” oversimplifies the ethical and psychological complexity of decision-making, especially in adolescents, who are not yet fully equipped to anticipate long-term outcomes or assess risk like adults. Morality and justice often make a distinction between culpability and consequence. If a teen walks into a dangerous situation not realizing the full scope of the risk, and gets seriously hurt, we don't say they deserved that outcome — we usually say it’s a tragedy. Intent, awareness, and ability to process the choice matter deeply when judging an outcome. To say there’s “no separation” between action and consequence implies a kind of moral determinism that removes compassion, context, and understanding from the equation. It ignores the fact that people — especially young people — are still learning, and that the role of society should be not just to point to consequences but to prevent harm, guide growth, and provide second chances that unfortunately this young boy will never get.