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

Thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. Pro has offered the following contentions: 1. Adult crimes deserve adult punishments. ---> As my opponent points out, juveniles are still being tried separately from adults for non-violent crimes. Laurence Steinberg writes about the crimes juveniles commit, noting society views "most of them as delinquent acts to be adjudicated within a separate juvenile justice system, that is theoretically designed to recognize the special needs and immature status of young people and emphasize rehabilitation over punishment" [1]. This is primarily for two reasons. First, juveniles are not as competent as adults, and therefore ought to be held to separate standards. Second, juveniles have demonstrated a higher capacity to change. If it can be recognized (and it is, based on current psychology and law) that juveniles ought to be held to separate standards than adults in SOME cases, then it logically and necessarily follows that they should be held to a separate standard in ALL cases. If the idea is that a juvenile is not fully developed and can make a mistake, then this must apply to even violent cases. While the damage and harm there is obviously worse than non-violent cases, that just means their punishment and/or rehabilitation needs to be more extensive. It doesn't mean they should be considered to have adult faculties when they clearly do not. 2. Unpunished crimes take away safety in the community. ---> We punish criminals for two reasons: to protect society, and to achieve some sort of justice (or fairness). So why should we try juveniles as adults? Regarding the protection of society, young offenders will still be kept off the streets in juvenile detention centers, so there is no safety issue. In terms of achieving justice, the idea is to hold the assailant responsible for his or her actions if it is deemed the offender intentionally inflicted harm upon another, or violated their rights in some capacity... which brings us to the next point. 3. Crime is a matter of choice. ---> A study done by the National Institute of Health found that the region of brain that inhibits risky behavior does not fully form until age 25. This is the final stage of brain development [2]. While that is not to say people cannot be held accountable for their actions until that age, it logically follows that people at different ages have a different capacity to understand different things. A three year old does not understand murder the way a thirteen year old does for example, and still a twenty three year old understands murder at an even more complex level. One's capacity to understand their actions absolutely plays a role in the criminal justice system. For example if a mentally handicapped person walked out of a store holding a piece of store property, people aren't going to assume it was intentional theft and thus may not seek to punish him the way they would an intentional offender. Similarly, people who commit crimes accidentally are not held to the same standard as those who intentionally inflicted harm. Likewise, children who do not or can not grapple with the severity of their crime should not be held to the same standard as a competent, more developed adult. That is not to say the child should not be punished at all; they should simply be given a fair assessment by acknowledging their inferior reasoning abilities. Note that the resolution does not call for juveniles to be tried as adults in ALL crimes; only violent ones. This simply does not follow. If it is accepted that juveniles should be tried separately from adults in *some* cases because they are not up to being held to the same standards as adults, then this mentality applies to crimes of ALL capacity. If you're saying juveniles should be more severely punished in only specific cases, then it's essentially leading by emotion and not logic. At that point it becomes not about justice but revenge. Therefore, Pro's value of justice is being violated. There are rapid and dramatic changes in individuals' physical, intellectual, emotional, and social capabilities during their pre-teen to adult years. If there is a period in the life span during which one might choose to draw a line between incompetent and competent individuals, this is it [1]. Additionally, researchers for the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice found that teenagers are less blameworthy than adults, and that their capacities change significantly over the course of adolescence [3]. What does this mean? Consider the cases of 9 year old Cameron Kocher or 11 year old Jordan Brown [3]. Both young boys were ruled to be tried as adults for murder. Do people really view 9 year olds as "small adults?" Obviously not. If so, they would have the same rights as adults -- which they obviously do not. Clearly, the State does not see them as being mature enough to be recognized as adults in *some* instances, yet when it comes to punishment, they somehow miraculously children gain the capacity to be considered as mature and responsible for their decisions as adults can be. It simply does not make sense. Justice is being violated if the resolution is upheld. [1] http://findarticles.com... [2] http://www.ehow.com... [3] http://articles.cnn.com...