juveniles charged with violent crimes should be punished and tried as adults

Thank you. For this debate, I feel it is necessary to define a few terms for clarification. (The following are defined by Merriam-Webster) Violent- marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity Crime- an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law ; especially : a gross violation of law2: a grave offense especially against morality. Now that that is over, and in the spirit of LD, I move on to my case. I value Justice, or giving each his due. The resolution is asking us to evaluate an action performed by an individual that inherently links to the removal of rights. Punishment, by definition, removes or restrains rights of the individuals. As such, the only real value pertinent to the core issue of this debate is the value of justice. All other values miss the core issue the resolution is stating and can be outweighed cleanly by justice. My value criterion is Protection of Human Rights. In order for one to keep his rights, one must prove that he is capable of making rational decisions. So by linking to human rights we link directly to justice which is due to all individuals. Contention One: To commit a crime you must understand the crime. When one is charged with a crime, one is fully aware of why they are accused and what exactly they are accused of. Without that procedure you'd basically have a roundabout way of arbitrarily deciding who gets what punishment. However, when one is accused of committing a crime and they do not understand, truly understand, what they have done wrong, they are not guilty of a crime for they knew not what they did. Which leads me to this: When one commits a crime, one is aware. Regardless of age, you knew what you were doing and what exactly the ramifications of an act will cause. Otherwise, they are ill-informed and due process becomes void. What I mean to say is, you cannot be brought to trial when you do not understand why you are brought to trial. You cannot commit a "crime" unless you understand that it is a crime. Moreover, a minor must understand why it is a crime before they can commit a crime. Contention Two: A minor can be every bit as dangerous to society as an adult. Minors may be younger in years than adults, however, they are not void from being as dangerous. Some of the worst crimes committed in today's society are things that a child could understand and do. In such a case that an adolescent is fill with such maliciousness that they would turn to a violent crime, we must assume they are a threat to society. Who is to say that that minor will not commit the action again? To do so even worse than before? We cannot let someone, anyone regardless of age get away with a slap on the wrist for a crime so severe as the violent crimes committed. (Violent Crimes are almost always felonies and are treated very seriously in the legal system) Contention Three: Minors are capable of making rational decisions. A minor does not mean someone who does not have the capacity to reason. A minor can be anyone from the time of birth until the "legal" age. So, to say that a minor is unjustly punished in being tried as an adult for a violent crime is to say that adults younger than other offenders are punished unjustly for getting the same punishment. A society cannot flourish without rights to people and those rights must be preserved, warranting you have not infringed upon anyone else's rights. As soon as you infringe upon another's rights, you immediately lose the right to have rights because you are a danger to the rights of the many. Thank you and good luck to my opponent.