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

Well i dont even know what an LD format is >.< Anyway, you keep posting arguments, but i want your source. No source? = Argument false "In order to uphold my case and provide for Moral Obligation, I offer the following criterion as a weighing mechanism for the round: Protection of Human Worth. I ask you judges, if you can protect human worth if you throw a ten year old in jail without parole for a mental problem? Take Eric Smith, for example. At the age of 13, he strangled a 4 year old, slammed two large rocks on his head, and then proceeded to shove a stick up his rectum. Judges, do you really think any sane human being would do such a terrible thing? And do you really think those nine years to life in prison will help his sanity more than a psychologist?" Killing and mutilating a 4 year old after being bullied doesnt classify as mental problem. He murdered someone. The murder is serious considering the victim is a 4 year old boy and since he was 13, he SHOULD be knowing whats right and wrong and that murder is an evil thing. For such an unacceptable crime, we should treat them as adults. Contention 1: Juveniles brains aren't as developed as Adults. According to Terence T. Gorski is an internationally recognized expert on substance abuse, mental health, violence, & crime and others qualified professionals, (Ed. Judy Layzell. Ortiz, Adam.) "Scientific studies have determined that the human brain undergoes continuous development up to the age of about twenty-one. "Because the brains of juveniles, particularly the frontal lobes, are not fully developed, youths lack the ability to perform critical adult functions, such as plan, anticipate consequences, and control impulses," states Adam Ortiz, a policy fellow with the American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center. Although juveniles should be punished for their crimes, they are not as responsible as adults. "This is the premise beneath society's across-the-board restrictions on voting rights, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and serving in the armed forces," observes Ortiz. "Indeed, this is why we refer to those under 18 as `minors' and `juveniles'—because, in so many respects, they are less than adult." Murder however is a different story since you ends someones life. As i said, you are TAUGHT to know whats wrong and right. The mentality of the newer generations are generally higher then the childrens from 30 years ago. Murder is wrong and if juveniles knows its wrong and still commits murder, why should we still go easy on them and treat them as juveniles? Contention 2: Punishment doesn't work, it just makes things worse. "Gorski presents three principles which should guide the debate regarding adult sentencing of juveniles. First, adolescents are not fully developed mentally and are prone to poor impulse control; second, even the most violent juvenile offender can be rehabilitated with proper treatment; last, the United States has a juvenile justice system that is designed to help youthful offenders, not punish them. "It is important to remember that punishment does not work," asserts Gorski. "Punishment is a failed strategy for changing behavior, teaching new skills, or developing new and more positive attitudes and beliefs." Are you even sure that it doesnt work? Some states now treat crimes from juveniles and adults the same way and what was the results? Crimes from juveniles dropped. It seems Gorski was wrong after all for some part. Contention 3: Youths are easily influenced "It's a well known fact that a most juvenile delinquents had a bad upbringing. During the adolescence period, the brain is still forming and learning right from wrong. If in a negative environment, what we in society has come to know as bad, can be known as 'good' for the child. An example would be a case where a Mother began stealing things with her children, hiding things in their pockets and purses. The children were thereby taught that stealing is OK, maybe even if they must use force. The children should not be held responsible, the bad influences should be, be it a parent or a sibling or maybe an older friend who's experienced in the life of crime. Therefore, we should always take different circumstances into account, something the Affirmative cannot do." I think this is an exception. If a certain person was stealing and you saw it, making you think its ok, then you are influenced by that person. Note that stealing isnt a serious felony. Sub Point A: Youths should not have access to violent weapons. "Guns are usually related to violent crimes juveniles commit. Obviously, you must be 21 to buy and legally own a gun. Who's to blame for letting an underage have possession of such dangerous weapons? Certainly not the juvenile. Maybe the parent didn't fully teach the juvenile right from wrong, and/or carelessly left the gun around. Maybe the juveniles see on T.V. the power the gun has, and can get whatever they want if they have possession of it." You are absolutely correct, they shouldnt be having access to weapons. However, since the gun doesnt tells you to pick it up and fire at people, the juvenile is at fault for taking the gun. Kids watches tv most of the day. They should be knowing what a gun is. Contention 4: You cannot protect Human Worth with the Affirmative position. "Professor Palo Annino (Florida State University) expands: Oh, absolutely, I think we're immoral, ultimately as a nation. This is no different from slavery and other major moral issues. Placing children in adult prisons for life is a death sentence for children. Do we want to do that as a society? Do we want to ignore our Western traditions? I mean, we do have Western traditions, and one part of our Western traditions is called redemption, and for many people in our culture redemption is an important value." Why do we put those children in jail in the first place? Because they committed a crime. Was it serious? Of course since he got life sentence for it. Neither the police nor the victims family will show you mercy if you commit a murder. If we punish juveniles for their crime, how is it immoral i ask you? Here i fight back since i dont like to be pummeled. "1. We look at them as a child because as my Con 1 and Con 3-Sub A states, there are multiple factors that are behind why a child commits violent felonies, such as abuse, growing up in a bad environment, etc. That's not even mentioning the fact that "During the adolescence period, the brain is still forming and learning right from wrong. If in a negative environment, what we in society has come to know as bad, can be known as 'good' for the child." At age of 13, you should be knowing that killing is wrong and that you get punished if you commit a murder. And with the rising mentality of younger ages, they should be knowing whats right and wrong at young age. You can disagree with me, but my claim still stands that they should be knowing it. "2. If we treat Children as Adults in terms of crime, we should treat them as adults in EVERYTHING, such as voting rights, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and serving in the armed forces. It would be hypocritical otherwise. Also, that narrow minded viewpoint doesn't bring in circumstances such as, as I stated, before abuse and growing up in a bad environment." I disagree here. We have these restrictions here to show those juveniles the differene between bad and good. We dont allow childrens smoke or drink alcohol. Why? Because its bad and unhealthy. As for jobs, the juveniles will be disagreeing with you xD (they dont want to work yet xD) Abuse and growing up in a bad environment doesnt force you to commit a crime. With killing all around you, its absurd to not know what killing is and if it is right or not. I guess i have to stop here since im running out of text... Source: http://www.time.com...