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

This is going to be an LD debate. Please don't accept unless you debate LD. At the bottom of the 3rd round please don't respond with an argument since there's no 2nr in LD. I stand to affirm: Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system. The value for the round is justice, defined as giving each their due. This is the most important value within the round, because the resolution bases itself in the US legal system, the primary purpose of which is to deliver justice. The criterion for the round is utilitarianism, defined as doing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. By acting in the best interests of the greatest portion of society, utilitarianism is able to bring justice to more people and to widely effect the welfare of society more than any other criterion, making it the most important standard in the round. Second, ethical rules must be universally applicable; if they apply to an actor in a given circumstance, then they ought rationally apply to all actors similarly situated. Otherwise, principles of right and wrong would not be predictable guides for action. Only a maximizing consequentialism maintains normative consistency as Philip Pettit proves: if as a non-consequentialist I universalize the prescription that I should instantiate a pattern, then the prescription — that any [person] ought to instantiate [the same] pattern, may force me to revise my self- [because]. I have equal reason to prefer both that I and any agent [act.] — this is expressed by the word ‘right’ or ‘ought’ in each case [Since] universalisability blocks me from treating myself as special. [although] my initial claim must have been to instantiate [the pattern] in my own life, I countenance the general claims of the-pattern when I prescribe general conformity not just conformity in my own case. Thus general conformity is to be promoted, even if that means not instantiating the pattern in my own behavior [so] I must embrace consequentialism I contend that putting juveniles in the adult system has a detterrent effect, since juveniles in the adult system will be punished harder than juveniles tried in the juvenile system. This is necessary since violent felonies have bad effects on the population. First, juveniles are deterred by the public punishments provided in the adult system, as Christine Chamberline explains: juvenile proceedings are still fairly confidential in many states. Transferring jurisdiction to adult court, would allow these proceedings to be more open to the public, increasing awareness among juveniles of the possibility of trial in adult court. [If] youthful offender trials [were] open to the general public as if they were adult trials, the imposition of an adult or blended sentence on a youthful offender may be publicized so that more juveniles become aware that severe penalties can be imposed on youthful offenders. This greater awareness should deter more juveniles from committing crimes. Second, harsher punishment deters crimes. Studies show that as the threat of punishment goes up, criminal behavior goes down - as Brian Oliver explains: trying juveniles as adults [causes] juveniles [to] be less likely to become involved in criminal behavior A study by Glassner provided support to this hypothesis. In the study, the authors interviewed youth about the criminal behavior they had engaged in as adolescents. What they found was that many of the youth interviewed made a conscious decision to stop engaging in criminal behavior once they turned 16, specifically because the laws on the books treated criminal offenders as adults starting at the age of 16. A recent study by Levitt 1998 provided additional support for the deterrence hypothesis. In the study, the juvenile crime rates between 1978 and 1993 were examined in relation to the punitiveness of the states’ juvenile court system in comparison to their criminal court system. What the study found was that states with harsher punishments for juveniles were more likely to experience lower rates of juvenile crime. This study provided evidence that harsher juvenile laws has a deterrent effect on juvenile crime. Deterring violent felonies is necessary under Utilitarianism and outweighs any other impacts for a few reasons. First, it outweighs on magnitude. Thousands of people are dying each year thanks to violent felonies, and this number can go down. Second, it outweighs on reversibility. It's impossible for a dead person to come back to life, but even if some juveniles are hurt in adult courts they can be given treatment. Third, it outweighs on probability. We know from these studies that if we put violent juveniles in adult courts crime WILL go down. For these reasons, I affirm. (You can start with the NC now - CX doesn't really work on debate.org)