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

Cx occurs in comments section, max 10 questions per person. Sources i shall post in the comments section I affirm Obs one: The word "charged" presumes the juvenile has not yet been convicted. Since it would be unwise to presume the guilt of tha individual, the timeframe of the debate can extend from trial to conviction, rendereing allarguments about punishment nonunique. I value human worth. Katz, 1997 explains the massive implications of dehumanization. (Kathryn D. Katz, prof. of law - Albany Law School, 1997, Albany Law Journal ) It is undeniable that throughout human history dominant and oppressive groups have committed unspeakable wrongs against those viewed as inferior. Once a person (or a people) has been characterized as sub-human, there appears to have been no limit to the cruelty that was or will be visited upon him. For example, in almost all wars, hatred towards the enemy was inspired to justify the killing and wounding by separating the enemy from the human race, by casting them as unworthy of human status. This same rationalization has supported: genocide, chattel slavery, racial segregation, economic exploitation, caste and class systems, coerced sterilization of social misfits and undesirables, unprincipled medical experimentation, the subjugation of women, and the social Darwinists' theory justifying indifference to the poverty and misery of others. There is an increasing tendency towards dehumanization as a response to many facets of modern life. 'The criterion to prevent the violation of human worth is maintaining the ability to prevent the permanent state of exception(I can explain this concept further in comments section if you should ask me to) State of exception basic concept: An abusive government that declares a "state of emergency" or a phase where they deem it necessary to violate people's rights in order to ensure "safety" or some other goal. Agamben states "The paradox of sovereignty consists in the fact the sovereign is, at the same time, outside and inside the juridical order. If the sovereign is truly the one to whom the juridical order grants the power …of suspending the order's own validity, then "the sovereign stands outside the juridical order and, nevertheless, belongs to it, since it is up to him to decide if the constitution is to be suspended in total." The specification that the sovereign is "at the same time outside and inside the juridical order" is not insignificant: the sovereign, having the legal power to suspend the validity of the law, legally places himself outside the law. This means that the paradox can also be formulated this way: "I, the sovereign, who am outside the law, declare that there is nothing outside the law." This paradox allows the government to be both the decider and the arbiter of justice and gives it free reign to do as it pleases in order to maintain sovereignty. Thus the standard in the round must be maintaining the ability to prevent the permanent state of exception, and the way we do this is by treating juveniles in adult courts.Throughout human history this state of exception has been used to justify genocides, violations of inherent rights, and mass totalitarian regimes. Take for example, the Hitler Regime. Agamben writes, ""The entire Third Reich can be considered a state of exception that lasted twelve years. In this sense, modern totalitarianism can be defined as the establishment, by means of the state of exception, of a legal civil war that allows for the physical elimination not only of political adversaries but of entire categories of citizens who for some reason cannot be integrated into the political system" (Agamben, pg 2)." Another example of when the state of exception has been applied is after 9-11, when Bush declared a "State of Emergency" allowing him to violate the privacy and rights of certain "suspected terroist." My sole contention is that juries lead to a state of exception. Feld explains, "Although the right to a jury trial is a crucial procedural safeguard when states punish offenders, the vast majority of jurisdictions uncritically follows McKeiver's lead and denies juveniles access to juries. Because judges and Juries decide cases and apply Winship's "reasonable doubt" standard differently, it is easier to convict youths in juvenile court than in criminal court with comparable evidence. Moreover, McKeiver's simply ignored the reality that juries protect against a weak or biased judge, inject the community's values into the law, and increase the visibility and accountability of justice administration. These protective functions acquire even greater importance in juvenile courts, which typically labor behind closed doors immune from public scrutiny. Kingston explains, "The Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial, and no one is above the constitution. Kingston furthers, "Every decision the government makes is based upon the constitution, every ruling reverts back to the principles of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is the check against the government. No person or governmental body is entitled to violate this for to violate this would be a direct attack against fundamental American rights. This means that if in the status quo juvenile courts which are controlled by the government violate the jury trial right, as guaranteed by the bill of rights, then they are hypocritically abusing their power and directly linking into the state of exception in the sense that no one can take away the rights in the Bill of Rights, and if the government is able to take this away from juveniles, they are clearly stepping outside of the law enabling them to function on a tyrannical level. My sole contention is the jury trials in adult courts prevent the permanent state of exception for three reasons: 1)Jury trials serve as a buffer between the government and people. Toqueville explains, "jury trials educate citizens about self-government. The traditional approach in U.S. court systems is for jurors to be the "triers of fact," while the judge is considered the interpreter of law and the one who will instruct the jury on the applicable law. Jury nullification occurs when a jury substitutes its own interpretation of the law and/or disregards the law entirely in reaching a verdict. Thus juries are able to nullify unjust laws the government may have made or falsified evidence the government may have planted and free a defendant based on their own assertion. This prevents a strict technical governmental law system from being implemented universally and allows for the community's opinion and values to be represented in the courts. 2)Without a trial by jury, it would be a trial by government Henderson explains, "A judge in the criminal justice system represents the government. In the juvenile system, the verdict is decided solely by the judge. Whereas it would take 12 unanimous jury members to convict a defendant, it only takes one judge to wield the sovereign power of life and death. Henderson furthers, " … Giving the power to one person to convict is simply tyrannical. Henderson writes, "A judge is not only representing the government, but can be seen as a direct analogy. Studies have shown judgs tend to convict 100 times more than free, and that the more authority a judge is given, the more corrupted the judge becomes and makes irrational decisions. IN the same way, once a government is given too much power they to beomce corrupt, this is evident in almost every dominant monarchy and totalitarian regime IMPACT: The state of exception essentially allows the government to justify the violation of people's rights under the pretense of it being a necssity to the safety of the people(example: 9-11), on a more topical note, the government i able to justify taking away a juvenile's right to jury under the excuse thy are less culpable and thus cannot handle one, as ruled in Mckiver v. Pennsylvania.