Punishment for sexually abusing a 4 month old infant

In accordance with the debate outline, I will be arguing that the child in this scenario should be sent to a juvenile treatment facility to be rehabilitated. There is hardly a more horrific criminal act than the rape of a toddler; it is difficult to imagine a scenario under which there is a more appropriate situation to assign the title of "monster" to the perpetrator of a crime, and yet , in this particular scenario, this assignment of guilt conflicts with an almost equally visceral and commonly held sensibility; that all children are innocent. One may believe that the mere question of innocence is not up for review, or even appropriate to this discussion, when designating a sentence to a known perpetrator of such a horrendous act, but it is this very question that lay at the heart of this moral dilemma, and we will see in the argument below that one must address the definition of guilt and innocence before proceeding to sentencing. When discussing guilt as a definition, we have to first define certain parameters by which we can equally administer this "guilt" to perpetrators of crimes of all natures. The most basic tenet in our criminal justice system for establishing guilt is that harm must be done to a person's health or damage to their property as a direct or indirect result of another person's actions. This may seem fine as a definition initially, but what happens when the accused has no reasonable way of knowing that their actions will cause damage or harm? If a man is killed by another man who has broken into his home and stabbed him with his kitchen knife, should the brother of this man also be implicated, provided that he gifted his brother with those knives? Should the knife manufacturer? If we can agree that neither of these parties are responsible, we must add another clause into our general assignment of guilt; that harm must be done by what we would reasonably consider either intent or negligence in order for an assignment of guilt to be attributed to those involved in a crime. As soon as we enter this clause into our definition of guilt, we face a very serious moral dilemma in the punishment-based prosecution of a child. During early adolescence and throughout teenage years, a person's brain is, in a very literal way, still forming. We do not trust a child's judgment enough to allow them to drive, to drink, to be able to consent to sex, to vote, or to stand on a jury, because we understand, as a society, that there is a certain amount of judgment and comprehension for the implications of one's actions that are simply not developed enough in the minds of adolescents below a certain age. It must be reasoned then that a person can not be found guilty of a particular crime if they do not have the capacity to comprehend the damage that they are inflicting on others. This argument addresses the first "pro" stance that prison sentencing usually encourages; that is, to punish the guilty party for their crimes, but what about the other positions, and why might rehabilitation, in this case, be a more suitable option? We may also consider the deterrence of future offenders, but given the argument for lack of comprehension, this position hardly makes sense. There is still the question of protecting society at large though, and this is where the option for rehabilitation truly outshines it's alternative. Put simply, rehabilitation is more effective as a means of protecting the public from offenders. In a study tracking over 400,000 prisoners in 30 states in the US, a 67.8% recidivism rate was found within three years of prisoner release. (1) A meta-analysis conducted across multiples studies on the effect of rehabilitation programs on recidivism, in contrast, found that rehabilitation reduced recidivism by 10 percentage points from the base rate. (2) 1. http://www.nij.gov... 2. http://law.jrank.org...