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

(This debate will take place in LD Debate format: AFF (Round 1) NEG (Round 2) AFffirmative Rebuttal (Round 3) Nebative Rebuttal R (Round 4) Affirmative Cristalization (Round 5)) "The date is July 28, 1999. Kathleen Grossett-Tate, a Florida highway patrol trooper and single mother, brought Tiffany Eunick home to watch for the evening. After dinner as the children watched television, Grossett-Tate went upstairs. Around 10 P.M., she yelled for them to quiet down, but didn't check on them. Forty minutes later Tate told his mother that Tiffany was not breathing… Experts testified that Tiffany suffered a beating lasting 1 - 5 minutes. She had 35 injuries, including a ruptured spleen, lacerations, and damage to her rib cage, a fractured skull, brain contusions, a partially detached liver and bruises all over her body." Lionel Tate went on to serve only three years for this heinous act. Before being released and convicted again with armed robbery. This is an example of one reason why I affirm the resolution: "Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system" The Value that is proper for this round in affirming the resolution is the Social Contract. This is the proper value for the round because the issue at hand is about the relationship between the government and those elements of society that threaten order. The government must do what is best for the most citizens because Americans allow themselves to be governed by laws in return for protection. When an individual of society endangers others by committing crimes, the government has an obligation to remove the criminal from society, holding the individual responsible for their actions and providing a measure of retribution for the victim; if the US government fails in capacity, the government is unequivocally unjust, and is not fit to govern. Therefore the criterion for fulfillment of the social contract in this debate is holding juvenile criminals accountable for their crimes. My first contention is treating juveniles who commit violent felonies through the juvenile system doesn't support the social contract. My second contention is treating juveniles as adults when it comes to violent felonies works to achieve the social contract. Before I continue, allow me to present several definitions found in the People's Law Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, and Cambridge International Dictionary. JuvenileGenerally . . . refers to people between the ages of 14 and 17. They lose their juvenile status on their 18th birthday (Fair-Debt-Collection.com) ChargeTo assert as an accusation Violent FelonyA felony is a crime carrying a minimum term of one year or more in state prison, since a year or less can be served in county jail. However, a sentence upon conviction for a felony may sometimes be less than one year at the discretion of the judge and within limits set by statute. Violent crimes include aggravated assault, arson, assault and battery, domestic violence, hate crimes, homicide, manslaughter, mayhem, murder, terrorism and theft/larceny. Ought Advisability Treated as adultsThe same legal filing, hearing, trial and/or judgment in the ongoing conduct of criminal prosecution for juveniles as adults Criminal Justice System|The series of organizations involved in apprehending, prosecuting, defending, sentencing, and jailing those involved in crimes. Again urge you to affirm today because affirming confirms the value of the social contract by holding juveniles accountable for their violent acts. Contention 1: Treating juveniles who commit violent felonies through the juvenile system doesn't support the social contract. Point A: Juvenile courts are unjust and faulty Barry C. Feld of the University of Minnesota Law School writes: "Despite the criminalizing of juvenile courts, most states provide neither special procedures to protect youths from their own immaturity nor the full panoply of adult procedural safeguards. Instead, states treat juveniles just like adult criminal defendants when treating them equally places youths at a practical disadvantage, and use less effective juvenile court safeguards when those deficient procedures provide an advantage to the state." This shows how juvenile courts, that the NEG inherently argues for, are unjust and cannot possibly hold juveniles effectively responsibly, while at the same time alienating their rights. Both of these are violations of the social contract and are reasons why the juvenile justice system is unjust Point B: Juvenile courts have lost their rehabilitative effect Jeffrey Fagan and Elizabeth Deschenes (Associate Professor at Rutgers and Research Sociologist at UCLA): "Proponents of deterrence and incapacitation policies criticized the juvenile court as ineffective at controlling violent juvenile crime. A series of damaging studies on the apparent weakness of rehabilitation programs negated the rehabilitative purposes of the juvenile court. Furthermore, the statutory limitations on punishment in juvenile court were criticized as inappropriate given the seriousness of violent crimes by adolescents and the public danger from juvenile violence." This shows that the rehabilitative aspect of the juvenile justice system is not as advantageous as the NEG will have you believe Contention 2: Treating juveniles as adults when it comes to violent felonies would work to support the social contract. Point A: Juveniles growing up in this day and age know what the implications of their actions are. Again I cite Barry Feld: "Developmental psychological research on adolescents' cognitive decision-making ability suggests that "for most purposes, adolescents cannot be distinguished from adults on the grounds of competence. A review of several psychological studies of adolescents' reasoning processes and understanding and use of medical information about their conditions and treatment options found that adolescents and adults generally made qualitatively comparable decisions." This shows that contrary to what the negative will have you believe adolescents are capable of decision making with equal ability as adults, and therefore can me held reasonably responsible for their actions. Point B: Treating juveniles through the criminal justice system would be fairer because a defendant's youth would still be able to be adjusted for blameworthiness according to age while still giving all the benefits of a criminal trial. Barry Feld "Because the rationale for youthful mitigation rests upon reduced culpability and limited opportunities to learn to make responsible choices, younger adolescents bear less responsibility and deserve proportionally shorter sentences than older youths. The capacity to learn to be responsible improves with time and experience. With the passage of time, age, and opportunities to develop the capacity for self-control, social tolerance of criminal deviance and claims for mitigation decline. Several youth sentencing policy groups and scholars implicitly endorse the concept of a "youth discount" or a sliding scale of criminal responsibility for younger offenders." This is a more desirable situation, because it would improve the flexibility of the justice system allowing juveniles to be sentenced fairly and on a case by case basis.