In the eyes of the law, should a 17-year-old be classified as an adult or a youth? What do you think?

An open letter from more than 30 groups working in the youth justice sector says the youth justice age should be raised from 16 to 17.

Among the groups – UNICEF, Women’s Refuge and the YMCA.

And it’s a proposal that will shortly go before cabinet. The government has indicated that it will move on this, and is considering raising the age.

At 17, I think you’re still a youth and if your offending is caught early enough, I think you can be reprogrammed to get back on the right track.

If you’re placed in the adult system as a 17-year-old, I think you're more likely to be fast-tracked into a life of crime.

In Australia, every state has now raised the youth justice age. New Zealand is poised to follow suit.

The question is -- what is the best way to treat a young offender? Is it the rehabilitation and restorative justice route? Or is punishment?

Does a 17-year-old belong in jail, or in a programme that will help to redirect them on to the right path, and perhaps back into education or employment?

I’m trying to think back to when I was 17. That was a wee while ago now, but I knew right from wrong. But then that's because I was raised that way. Not every child has that luxury. We know too well in this country, don't we, that some children are dragged up, not brought up.

In opposition to this, and staunchly so, is New Zealand First. The party says the age of accountability should remain at 17 -- 17 year olds should be tried as adults -- because the only way to curb youth offending is to make sure there are boundaries in place and consequences that can be enforced.

The party's spokesperson Darroch Ball says youth are currently taking the system for a ride committing crimes including smash and grabs and aggravated robberies and assaults.

The party says it's had enough of "Weak-kneed liberal alternative pathways for criminal youth".

Yet right now, our system is out of step with the rest of the world.

It's worth pointing out that if the youth justice age is raised, those who commit the most serious of crimes can still be transferred to a district court for sentencing.

But for those 17 year olds who commit lesser crimes, then surely placing them alongside hardened criminals and gang associates in the adult system will put them on a conveyor belt to a lifetime of crime.

The Government is suggesting it will move on this -- should it? Should we do what we can to keep 17-year-old youth offenders out of the adult justice system?