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

Pro stated intention I intend to show that treating juveniles who have committed violent felonies as adult in the criminal justice system is upheld by both deontological and utilitarian standards. Pro stated intention [Rebuttal] Even if this is true, it does not prove that all juveniles who commit crimes should be treated as an adult. I argue that current juvenile system adheres to both of those principles and therefore is a legitimate legal system pursuant to the Pro. Second, since some defendants will be found not guilty for reasons other than innocence, it will sometimes run counter to those goals. Third, even when some juveniles are convicted of a violent crimes in adult court, it won't serve deontological or utilitarian--thus would not be justified. Contention 1 : Trying juveniles as adults is justified deontological Rebuttal I argue that the current system already supports the deontological theory. Second, it may in fact lead to less juvenile convictions which would run counter to the deontological theory if more juveniles were tried as adults. It is my contention that 12 year olds and children younger that commit murder and are tried in the juvenile system often remain in that facility until they are twenty-one years old. I assert that they are being punished especially considering that their childhood is essentially over. As you admit in your last argument, these children are often raped and beaten by other children within the facility. Moreover, it might be more difficulty for a jury to convict a child 12 years old or younger in an adult court, considering the harsh punishment the child me face. Jurors will no doubt think of their son, daughter, niece or nephew when making that decision. This is often referred to as jury nullification. It is a phenomenon when a jury either finds an offender innocent or remains hung not because the guilt is in question, but the punishment that the offender faces is. Thus it might be counter to the deontological theory because there might be hung juries as a result. Many children would go home to their families without receiving any punishment. Sub Point A: Maturity ought to determine culpability, not numerical age. [Rebuttal] Please understand that you have two competing justice systems in the United States--one an adult system and the other a juvenile system. The two systems have there owe set of rules, regulations and standards for sentencing. The juvenile system was created because there was strong evidence that suggested that children were not always as culpable as an adult offender. You admit in your opening that "juveniles as a group are less mature, brain development rates." For that reason the United States created a juvenile system. However, they also understand that some children under the age of 18 years of age might be just as culpable as an adult as you correctly point out by your statement that "level of maturity varies greatly from individual to individual." Therefore in cases wherein a prosecutor believes that a child younger than 18 years or older is just as culpable as an adult he or she goes in front of a judge in order to get permission to try him or her as an adult. In that court proceeding, both sides get an opportunity to argue in front of the judge as to why or why not a child under the age of 18 should or should not be tried in an adult court system. Sub Point B: Punishment is expressive and sends a clear message against crime [Rebuttal] As I pointed out earlier. The current juvenile system gives society the ability to express moral outrage of certain acts. In many cases, the public lobbies for a child under the age of 18 to be tried as an adult. In other cases, the public does not push for that action. It makes no sense to for society to send a message to six year olds who strangle their baby sister to death or throws their baby brother to floor doing their favorite wrestling move that it is wrong and won't be tolerated. How would trying the six year old who won't even understand the charges against him or her send that message? What would be the purpose of the punishment? Would this deter other six year olds from committing murder? No. Would this satisfy the publics thirst for blood? No. Thus, it would be wiser to allow this child to be tried in a juvenile system wherein he or she could receive rehabilitation. There would be no purpose in sentencing this child to thirty years in prison or death. If a child under the age of 18 is culpable then a judge would give permission to the prosecutor to try them as an adult. If the child does not understand why there action was wrong then there is no deontological or utilitarian purpose for most in society. Contention 2 : Trying Juveniles as adults is justified from a utilitarian perspective. [Rebuttal] I have already made arguments that trying a six year old in an adult court does not serve a utilitarian purpose. It would not deter the overwhelming majority of six year olds. It would not deter the general public at large since they are no juveniles and won't effect them either way. Moreover, most people would have trouble with punishing the child at all. Thus, it is much wiser for society to leave punishment to a judge who specializes in these cases. The judge would be in a much better position to make decisions with regard to punishment with regard to these offenders. Sub Point A: Trying Juveniles as adults reduces crime. [Rebuttal] I can agree with Dr Moin. I suppose that the crime rate will be lowered somewhat by holding juveniles longer. One, the maximum age of release is 21, however that is subject to change if legislators believe its necessary. Two, one could achieve this goal by given life sentences to everyone committing a violent crime. Would this be the right thing to do in every case? While reducing crime should be a factor, it should not be the overriding factor with regard to sentencing. There are many ways to reduce crime, but imprisoning potentially rehabilitated children longer does not necessarily justify that end. Moreover, you provide no evidence that all juveniles are necessarily deterred by this activity--especially ones 12 years old or younger. Are you arguing that seven, eight and nine year olds are influenced by their peers being sentence to longer jail terms? I will agree society may benefit from children 14 years of age or older who comprehend such possible harsh punishment. It is no doubt that many of them refrain from certain crimes with that thought in mind. In most states, any child 12 years older will receive a hearing to determine whether or not they should be tried as an adult. In many cases they will be tried in an adult court. What is the purpose of trying all children in adult court? Sub Point B: Juveniles are more likely to be raped in the Juvenile Justice System This further proves that the juvenile justice system is no cake walk. There are real dangers there. I guess an adult prison is safer? Pro Closing In summary, trying juveniles as adults is justified by both deontological and utilitarian views of justice by ensuring culpability is the standard of punishment all the while deterring crime and protecting juveniles from abuse. Con Closing In summary trying all juveniles as adults is not necessarily justified by either deontological and utilitarian views since some juveniles will be found innocent due to them not being mentally culpable or due to jury nullification. In these cases, those children will go free instead of going to juvenile holding facilities where they could possibly be rehabilitated--this does not serve deontological or utilitarian purpose in fact runs contrary to those theories. The current justice system permits a prosecutor to try juvenile offenders in adult court if they believe him or her to be of sound mind which serves both deontological and utiltarina views.