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

Introduction I didn't have enough characters in my last round to write an introduction, but I wanted to say thank you for this opportunity to debate, Pro, and welcome to DDO! :) Now onto my rebuttal... 1A. Pro writes, "You can't weigh age in it [determining justice] because those factors are always changing and not everyone is the same age." In other words, she's repeating her argument that age isn't a factor, because all that matters is the severity of the crime. However in the last round I pointed out that people are held to different standards of accountability based on their level of reasoning. For instance, Pro admits that a toddler simply lacks the rationale to understand the severity of a crime such as murder, while arguably a teenager and adult can. However if we acknowledge a disparity in reasoning between a toddler and teenager, then we should also acknowledge the same disparity between teenagers and adults. In the last round I provided evidence proving that the region of the brain that inhibits risky behavior does not fully form until age 25. This means that teenagers are more susceptible to "crimes of passion," which our criminal justice system acknowledges as a viable defense in many cases to disprove premeditation [1]. Pro ignored this as well as my other sources pertaining to the teenage brain and accountability. Lastly on this point, I vehemently disagree with my opponent's statement "As for rational thinking, all they have to know is the difference between whether their action was right or wrong." Our criminal justice system and moreover the concept of justice is far more complex than that. 1B. In response to the juvenile punishments tending to be more lenient, Pro writes, "The penalties are more severe because the crime is more brutal. If a juvenile is able to commit a more serious violent felony, their punishment should be more severe." However this doesn't make any sense. I'm contending that even if the crimes are equally brutal, characteristics about the defendant do matter in achieving justice. If someone killed someone on accident, for instance, that would be a "violent crime" but that doesn't mean the offender ought to be severely punished to achieve "justice." Furthermore, Pro hasn't explained why a juvenile needs to be tried in an adult court to receive an adult-like sentence. As of 2005, a juvenile who committed a crime prior to their 18th birthday cannot receive the death penalty. However, they can still receive life in prison as a sentence [2]. Currently 15 states don't have the death penalty, meaning even adults who are tried in adult court might receive the same sentence as a juvenile. Therefore, Pro hasn't proven why adult courts help better achieve justice. Regarding Pro's point about defense attorneys not having enough time to build a proper case in juvenile court, I would like to see cited evidence of that accusation or else we have no reason to accept it. 1C. I accept Pro dropping this point; however, I would still like to submit it in my favor lol. Once again, the factoid is "Youth who are subjected to the more punitive adult court system showed HIGHER rates of recidivism, and re-offended more quickly than those youth components that have gone through rehabilitative centers within the criminal justice system." In other words, trying juveniles as juveniles tends to be more effective. 2. Pro says we will discuss this further "once I have gotten all the facts." I'm assuming this is referring to reading the rest of her cut-off argument that she has provided for us in this round. However all she has provided us with is that young children do understand concepts of right and wrong, and suggests that juveniles' brains are merely emotionally stunted. That, however, is simply not true according to the sources I've provided in the last round as well as any neuroscience book I've ever read. Pediatric neurologist Frances Jensen talks about how the crucial frontal lobes of the brain are not really developed in your teenage years. "It's the part of the brain that says: 'Is this a good idea? What is the consequence of this action?' ... It's not that they don't have a frontal lobe. And they can use it. But they're going to access it more slowly" [3]. In addition to the frontal lobe, the brain's emotional center (the amygdala), which controls anger, fear and recklessness among other reactions is in a much higher gear during one's teenage years than their adult, when it becomes more tempered by their frontal lobe. Without the frontal lobe on board, it becomes physiologically harder for a teen to completely understand the future consequences of his or her emotional or impulsive actions, scientists contend [4]. Most importantly, Pro dropped my argument from the last round pertaining to what rights and responsibilities juveniles have in society as compared to adults. Quite obviously minors are barred from certain things like voting, buying alcohol, gambling, getting married, living on their own, etc. because the State deems them too young (immature) to make important decisions and be held to the same standards as adults. As such, it is completely hypocritical to suggest they are not progressed enough to buy cigarettes, but then say they can be considered an adult when it comes to sentencing them to death. Remember that a death sentence is the ONLY different punishment a minor can receive in the juvenile system as opposed to the adult court system. Aside from that, extend all of my arguments that Pro dropped in failing to respond to Point 2 at all. Conclusion Pro writes, "Just because they are a juvenile does not mean they are not a criminal." As I explained in the last round, just because a minor is being tried in a juvenile court does not mean they are not in fact a criminal, or that justice will not (or can not) be served. Holding them to different standards is certainly not an excuse of their crime by any means. Finally, Pro concludes that it undermines the criminal justice system to suggest that minors can be rehabilitated. She also says that adults retain this potential as well. First, I provided a cited source indicating that research shows juveniles have a much higher chance to be rehabilitated than adults, thereby negating Pro's response. Second, Pro seems to dismiss the idea of rehabilitation all-together as if punishment was the sole purpose of the justice system. As I said in the last round, we punish people in the criminal justice system to protect society and to achieve a sense of fairness. However justice =/= revenge, and the juvenile courts are just as capable of adequately punishing a minor as an adult court. "Justice" means the assailant got what they deserved. Getting what they deserve means they were of sound capacity to be held liable for their actions. While one's age is certainly no excuse for the crimes they commit, it can and should certainly be a factor in the judgment process. Thanks so much again, Pro, and good luck! References [1] http://www.associatedcontent.com... [2] http://www.csmonitor.com... [3] http://www.npr.org... [4] http://www.abqtrib.com...