Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adult

HUGE CONTRADICTION I meant that six year old across that county would not be deterred from a crime even if another six year old is punished. However, children older might hear about sentences that kids their age receive and that might deter some crime and reduce crime as a result. No contradiction. The Adult Court system provides judges the capability of mandating rehabilitative services. The Pro is the one seeking to change the dual criminal justice system. The burden is on the Pro to show unique advantages for the adult system. I am happy to concede that both are adequate. I am simply saying that, rather than placing people a day before they are 18 in the same category as 10 year olds, we should look at every individual offender, well, individually! When should a person be death penalty eligible? Do you support child any child eight years old or younger being eligible for the death penalty? My argument was that the adult court allows greater rights protections. The legal standard could be changed to give greater protections for juveniles. The fact is, juvenile courts have to be limited in sentencing otherwise they are not juvenile courts. A juvenile court is a juvenile court because only children under 18 years of age can be tried there. MY OPPONENT doesn't provide evidence that the "vetting process is extensive." They check your credit score, criminal record, high school transcripts, juvenile records, friends, family, teachers and neighbors. I say this is extensive. Call your local juvenile facility if you don't believe me. The Pro argues that the most important factor with regard to justice is given one his or her their due. I agree with this point. He next argues that a predictor of justice is government legitimacy. I agree as well. He then asserts that the government cannot only be legitimate if invokes both deontological (eye for an eye) and utilitarian aspects (deterrence) principles. I don't oppose this position, although other theorist might. Next he argues that trying juveniles in an adult court that commit violent crimes is justified because it gives everyone their due because it adheres to both deontological and utilitarian principles. The Pro central arguments against the current juvenile system is that people 18 years old are treated differently than people 17 years, 364 days, 59 mins and 59 seconds and the other being that children or subject to sexual abuse in a juvenile system. [a] Under the Pros analysis a six to twelve year old determined to be just as culpable and blameworthy as in adult might be subject to death --"we execute murderers in order to make a communal proclamation: that murder is intolerable. The Pro argues that the judge can factor in the child's age during the sentencing phase. He then asserts that the prosecutor will lose if he pursues too harsh of a sentence. Here is the problem with that analysis. Some states have sentencing guidelines which cannot be altered by a judge. In these states, jury nullification might become common place, the passage below supports this claim. "In the early part of the 19th century, to the chagrin of prosecutors, jury nullificationï¿½€"the process by which jurors acquit an apparently guilty criminal defendant rather than impose a disproportionately severe sanctionï¿½€"began to play a significant role in the acquittal of children charged with crime. By creating the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism, Quakers in New York City sought to establish a balance between those concerned about jury nullification and those repelled by imprisoning juvenile defendants in adult institutions or exposing them to the possibility of capital punishment. The society, which later evolved into the Society for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents, founded the first House of Refuge in New York in 1825 to "receive and take . . . all such children as shall be taken up or committed as vagrants, or convicted of criminal offenses" (Pickett, 1969). [b] In states where there are no such guidelines and the judge has complete flexibility to determine any sentence he or she sees fit after trial invites jury nullification as well. Moreover, it might be rejected by the citizens in that state. A jurist might vote to acquit due to fear of the possible sentence a child will receive or has received in the past. The public might fear an adult offender possibly receiving probation after being convicted for a serious crime. However, I am only concern with the former. Prior to 1900, at least 10 children were executed in the United States for crimes committed before their 14th birthdays (Streib, 1987). Other children died in adult prisons. Virginia penitentiary records from 1876 reflect that a 10-year-old prisoner died from being scalded accidentally in a tub of boiling coffee. These deaths shocked the public conscience. Accordingly, Americans in the 19th century sought more pervasive reform than the infancy defense to address the distinctive nature of children and youth. Most people would not accept this punishment as children receiving their DUE. [c] Some jurist might vote not guilty because they are concerned about children going to an adult prison. The Pro argues that an adult prison with career felons, pedophiles, serial killers and the alike is much safer than the current juvenile system. There is research that runs counter to that claim. " Research has shown that juveniles incarcerated with adults are five times more likely to report being victims of sexual assault than youth in juvenile facilities,[5] and the suicide rate of juveniles in adult jails is 7.7 times higher than that of juvenile detention centers.[6] As states try growing numbers of juveniles as adults, the risk of sexual abuse increases. Joanne Mariner, "Preventing Prison Rape, FindLaw.com, June 24, 2002. The Pro argues that we should separate juveniles from the adult offenders. It seems that such a dual housing system would necessary treat offenders differently. Wouldn't this suggest that a person 18 years of age and a person 17 years, 364 days, 59 mins and 60 seconds are treated differently in the criminal justice system? Why wouldn't this housing structure not be completely be arbitrary if age is nothing but a number? The Pro taunts the 12.1 statistic The 12.1 percent cited in the study does not clearly identify what percentage of the sexual abuse was committed by other juveniles opposed to the percentage was committed by the staff. The entire 12.1 percent could all be the former. Key Points To Consider 1. All juveniles in states should be eligible to death or life imprison just like there adult counter part. If the Pro disagrees it would violate the idea that an that a person 18 years of age and a person 17 years, 364 days, 59 mins and 60 seconds should not be treated differently 2. Juveniles are five times more likely to be sexual assaulted while being housed with adults. If the Pro claims that juveniles should be separated, it would violate the idea that an that a person 18 years of age and a person 17 years, 364 days, 59 mins and 60 seconds should not are treated differently 3. The Pro provides no evidence that security guards in juvenile centers are pedophiles. In fact, many applications for Correction Officers don't mention whether or not it's a juvenile or adult facility. 4. If the Pro advocated getting rid of the juvenile holding facilities due to rapes then he would have to also advocate the same for adult facilities. There are far more rapes committed at those facilities than there are at juvenile holding facilities, yet there is no concern expressed.