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

My opponent seems to assume that, juveniles possibly being punished less would not uphold deontological standards. No, I said that failing to punish juveniles who commit punishable crimes do to jury nullification does not uphold your deontological standards. This will happen because some juries would refuse to send a young child to an adult prison facility. By allowing juveniles to be tried in adult court, we allow the court to consider the maturity of the individual when determining punishment. The juvenile system and the adult system already consider maturity of the individual when determining punishment. However, the juvenile system is primarily focused on rehabilitation. Thus, persons that are 17 years old or younger are children and are given lower sentences for the same crime than adults 18 years of age or older. In the United States 18 years old is the age that one becomes legal. With age becomes more freedoms and responsibilities. If there was no arbitrary age that someone became an adult, the person would have to take a competency test for everything. You would have 13 year old applying for driver's licenses, 20 year old being denied voting rights and 12 year old alcoholics. There is no law that makes discrimination based on age unless its truly arbitrary. You have to be 18 years old to be a police officer or fire fighter but less than the age of 35. Age is the most important factor when determining culpability and blameworthiness as it relates to children. The difference is that we do not set an arbitrary line at the day one turns 18 that classifies people under 18 as irrational and those over 18 as rational. I recently turned 18 and I did not receive a glowing present called "rationality." Rationality is progressive and we shouldn't have a court system that arbitrarily divides defendants. Once you turned 18 years old, you are no longer eligible to participate in the juvenile system. Yes, you are being discriminated against based on your age, but so does the kid that is one day younger than you who can't vote. Since every person will be privy to both justice system for exactly 17 years 23 hours 59 mins and 59 seconds, there is no discrimination at all. Why should we change the system after you already benefited from the system? My opponent seems to suggest that juveniles are receiving there due since they are subjected to rape in the juvenile system. I am simply responding to your argument that the juvenile system does not punish harsh enough. My opponent contradicts himself when he says, on the one hand, that he agrees juveniles are different than adult but then, on the other, that the juvenile system should remain in place because it punishes them so harshly. I don't believe I contradicted myself at all. I certainly believe that the juvenile system should not be replaced. I also believe that the juvenile system does punish the children there. As I noted, they are confined and away from their families. But, the most important factor is that they are housed with other children and not adults. Juveniles have much fewer rights protections in juvenile court than in adult court. The juvenile system could remain and change the legal standard to be consistent with the adult court. But its better as it is. Furthermore, as I stated in my case, adult courts can decide which punishment is suitable based on the culpability of the individual. The juvenile courts decide which punishment is suitable based on the culpability of the individual as well. With this understanding, the idea that juries will convict fewer juveniles makes no sense, unless the court is pursuing an overly harsh punishment, in which case they should not be convicted. No, many adults will not convict children because they fear them going to adult prisons. These kids will go free and never receive the rehabilitation they need. This is precisely why we need a dual court system. My opponent states that prosecutors can make exceptions and try juveniles in adult court. The problem here is that there is still an inconsistency of treatment in that an individuals who commits a crime the day before they are 18 is able to defend them-self twice, once in the case of whether they should be tried as a child or an adult and then in their adult trial. However, An individual who commits the exact same crime the day after they are 18 does not have such a luxury. Treating equals unequally is the definition of an injustice, but this is exactly what having two systems based on an arbitrary line at 18 does. No, its not an injustice at all. As I have noted above, there must be a definitive age of adulthood. It seems that my opponent only applies this standard to the justice system. He has not argued that these younger children should be able to marry, work, vote, drink, or gamble provided that they can demonstrate the necessary maturity. It is no doubt that some children may be competent to do some of the things aforementioned, but there is no cries of injustice in these matters. If an immature child commits a crime, the court can take into account that the child is immature. In an adult court, the child would be found innocent. However, the juvenile might be found guilty in a juvenile court. Since the goal is rehabilitation the court may send the six year old to for evaluation wherein they just go home otherwise. Thus, my opponent has failed to show any unique advantages of a juvenile Justice system. I am arguing that we should maintain the current system, it is my opponents position that a one system legal system should be preferred. I am arguing that the current system takes in considerations your utilitarian and deontological concerns. Furthermore, my opponent makes a HUGE CONTRADICTION. I read my entire post, but can't figure out what your referring to. Please post next time. Most adult courts allow judges a great amount of flexibility in what punishment to give and if the prosecution is pushing for punishment that is overly harsh, the jury will reject it but if the punishment being pursued in fair, the jury will accept it. Juvenile judges have tremendous flexibility as well. As I noted in my last post, I would not oppose increasing the flexibility to the judge to give longer sentences if necessary. That is why the entire framework of my case is based on the necessity of considering utilitarian AND deontological concerns (giving people what they are due). I meet both of these concerns because as my opponent admits by agreeing with Dr. Moin's study, and ensure juveniles receive what they are due by allowing culpability, that is, blameworthiness as the factor of determining sentencing rather than whether the individual is younger or older than an age arbitrarily set. My opponent does not prove the current dual system does not ensure juveniles receive what they are due by allowing culpability, that is, blameworthiness as the factor of determining sentencing. These factors are already prevalent in the dual court system. When you have guards for juvenile systems you have a much greater risk those who accepts the jobs are pedophiles of authority over children who's stories may not be believed by other adults is like a flashing neon light for pedophiles. The vetting process with regard to selecting juvenile security guards is extensive. My opponent provides no evidence that this frequently occurs. Moreover, what prevents these same pedophiles from applying for these jobs at the adult court if its so easy. Most people that elect to work with children do so because the like children not because they are pedophiles. The current dual court system serves ensure juveniles receive what they are due by allowing culpability, that is, blameworthiness as the factor of determining sentencing. Moreover its serves both utilitarian and deontological concerns. And, yes, adults are discriminated against