In the united states, juveniles charged with a violent felony ought to be treated as adults

I will start with my case then attack my opponets In order to clarify the debate, I offer the following counter definitions Felony: an offense, as murder or burglary, of graver character than those called misdemeanors, esp. those commonly punished in the U.S. by imprisonment for more than a year. Juvenile: Of, relating to, characteristic of, intended for, or appropriate for children or young people Adult: intended for adults; not suitable for children. My value for the round is Moral Obligation. Is moral or not to not take different circumstances into account while giving a sentence as strong as twenty years to a ten year old? There are different circumstances to every crime, and the Affirmative position is too narrow-minded to see that. The Criterion is Protection of Human Worth. you can not protect human worth if you throw a ten year old in jail without parole for a mental problem? Take Eric Smith, for example. At the age of 13, he strangled a 4 year old, slammed two large rocks on his head, and then proceeded to shove a stick up his rectum. any sane human would never do such a terrible thing nine years to life in prison will not help his sanity more than a psychologist? Upon leaving prision as the insane person he is he would likely commit another crime. Therefore, the Affirmative has the burden to prove that treating juveniles charged with violent felonies treated as adults in the criminal justice system Protects Human Worth. The Affirmative also has the burden to prove that we must treat children and adults the same, while the negative only has to prove that children and adults should be treated different, not neccisarily less. Contention 1: Juveniles brains aren't as developed as Adults. According to Terence T. Gorski is an internationally recognized expert on substance abuse, mental health, violence, & crime and others qualified professionals, (Ed. Judy Layzell. Ortiz, Adam.) Scientific studies have determined that the human brain undergoes continuous development up to the age of about twenty-one. "Because the brains of juveniles, particularly the frontal lobes, are not fully developed, youths lack the ability to perform critical adult functions, such as plan, anticipate consequences, and control impulses," states Adam Ortiz, a policy fellow with the American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center. Although juveniles should be punished for their crimes, they are not as responsible as adults. "This is the premise beneath society's across-the-board restrictions on voting rights, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and serving in the armed forces," observes Ortiz. "Indeed, this is why we refer to those under 18 as `minors' and `juveniles'—because, in so many respects, they are less than adult." By this reasoning, the mere act of punishing a juvenile as an adult is immoral, and therefore does not Protect Human Worth. Contention 2: Punishment doesn't work, it just makes things worse. Gorski presents three principles which should guide the debate regarding adult sentencing of juveniles. First, adolescents are not fully developed mentally and are prone to poor impulse control; second, even the most violent juvenile offender can be rehabilitated with proper treatment; last, the United States has a juvenile justice system that is designed to help youthful offenders, not punish them. "It is important to remember that punishment does not work," asserts Gorski. "Punishment is a failed strategy for changing behavior, teaching new skills, or developing new and more positive attitudes and beliefs." Contention 3: Youths are easily influenced It's a well known fact that a most juvenile delinquents had a bad upbringing. During the adolescence period, the brain is still forming and learning right from wrong. If in a negative environment, what we in society has come to know as bad, can be known as 'good' for the child. An example would be a case where a Mother began stealing things with her children, hiding things in their pockets and purses. The children were thereby taught that stealing is OK, maybe even if they must use force. The children should not be held responsible, the bad influences should be, be it a parent or a sibling or maybe an older friend who's experienced in the life of crime. Therefore, we should always take different circumstances into account, something the Affirmative cannot do. Sub Point A: Youths should not have access to violent weapons. Guns are usually related to violent crimes juveniles commit. Obviously, you must be 21 to buy and legally own a gun. Who's to blame for letting an underage have possession of such dangerous weapons? Certainly not the juvenile. Maybe the parent didn't fully teach the juvenile right from wrong, and/or carelessly left the gun around. Maybe the juveniles see on T.V. the power the gun has, and can get whatever they want if they have possession of it. Contention 4: You cannot protect Human Worth with the Affirmative position. Professor Palo Annino (Florida State University) expands: Oh, absolutely, I think we're immoral, ultimately as a nation. This is no different from slavery and other major moral issues. Placing children in adult prisons for life is a death sentence for children. Do we want to do that as a society? Do we want to ignore our Western traditions? I mean, we do have Western traditions, and one part of our Western traditions is called redemption, and for many people in our culture redemption is an important value. Instead of throwing a ten year old in jail for a mental problem or simply a mistake, how about we try for redemption and get the children rehabilitation. Now to my opponets case obs. The deference in trying someone as an adult or a chlid is the punishment for their crime, therefore we must look to the punishment of their crime as a detirmining factor. obs2. my opponet and I both look toward Human Worth in the debate, therefore whomever can prove that Human Worth is better upheld by trying, or not trying juveniles with violent felonies as an adult will set the standard to win the debate. Value: my opponet values human worth, and i agree that this should be valued, but throwing innocent children dose not protect human worth as explained in my 4th contention. since i already touched on this in contention 4 i will carry on to preserve characters. Criterion: my opponets criterion is state of exception. we cannot look to this criterion because it is a contradiction in itself. the fact that a government violates a persons rights dosent uphold saftey in itself. another reason that we cannot look to state of exception is that his value and criterion contradict. if we allow the government to violate a humans rights we are not protecting their worth. this value and criterion cannot work togeather, so we cannot look to them as frame work. contention: Juries lead to a state of exception. We can not look toward a state of exception. in my opponets Agamben card he uses hitler as a state of exception, and the problem with this is that we shouldnt model our government after hitler. we all know how cruel hitler was, sending jews to concentration camps and killing millions of people, and we cannot follow his example. instead we should value human worth and allow juevaniles to be tried as just what they are. Children. juries are a good thing, but we can allow juries to try children as children. in conclusion, both me and my opponet look towards human worth to decide the winner of the debate, my opponets criterion of state of exception contradicts both itself and the value of human worth, and my opponets card/ contention look to follow hitlers example. we cannot follow hitler. my opponet has failed to meet either burden the resolution applies or the burdent of protecting human worth, so you must vote negative. thank you and vote negative.