Resolved: US Supreme Court ought favor sentences of life without parole for adolescents under 18.

Rebuttal Contention 1: If you ask a 13-year old the same exact thing, the most common response would be that a home invasion would be wrong as well, but the difference is that at age 13, making such a decision, even when knowing it's wrong, would be seriously hindered by the differences of a brain'c omplexity in contrast to that of a 40-year old. Instead of being driven more by rational thought, adolescents are mostly driven through emotions and impulse, as my evidence has clearly explained. My opponent tries to bring 18 and 19-year olds into the equation as teenagers as well, but the difference is in the resolution, where we are only talking about the ones who are younger and have even less mental complexity than an 18-year old. Yes, 16 and 17 year olds are different than 18 year olds in their mental complexity, and although they are pretty close to the complexities of an 18-year old, the main thing is that they're not there yet. It's evident here that my opponent is trying to shift the burden of this debate in order to include 18 year olds in the question of adolescents attaining life sentences. At the point where I have proven that adolescents are incapable of making rational decisions, that alone should be enough warrant for rehabilitation to be instituted rather than severe punishment. Punishment is necessary at some level, but only focusing on the punishment is not the answer. At the point where a person cannot make such a rational decision, is it really fair for him or her to be given a punishment of a degree for someone who is capable of making such a decision? That doesn't make sense at all.Sub-point 1b: I encourage the voters to check this point because the link is supposed to be evidence to the overarching point alone. My opponent completely seems to disregard the evidence I put up as well. I'm well aware that rehabilitation does not always work, but this is because the juvenile justice system has not been substantiated enough in order to work. In my evidence, I explain the juvenile justice system in Missouri, a state with 8% recidivism rate in the context of juvenile offenders. At the point where I can find even one example of a functioning juvenile justice system, it means that at some level through some form, a juvenile justice system focusing on rehabilitation can work. If the United States government contains the resources in order to place a juvenile in the adult justice system with adult sentences, it has the resources to make reforms in the structure of the justice system. What my opponent fails to take into account is the functioning of the justice system and why it doesn't work, in contrast to my case, which explains to you why Missouri is so functional. Sub-point 1c: If we're looking in the context of morality in this debate, as I have explained in my Observation 1, for one thing, we can completely see that what my opponent is saying is immoral: using the suicide of a teenager, an adolescent with no capability to make rational decisions, in order to enforce an ideology in society. With my idea of a deontological perspective in reaching morality, regardless of what the consequences of the action are, the action of placing a teenager in this dangerous environment all for the sake of enforcing social harmony is nothing but immoral. The main focus of harms in my case is not entirely about the suicides, but rather, effects of the prison system to reach the suicide, and what happened is that a teenager has been harmed mentally to the point where suicide is an option. Subjecting a juvenile to such an environment, more vulnerable mentally than an adult counterpart and more impulsive, is incredibly immoral. My opponent only addresses suicide, rather than explaining on the rape and abuse in jails, so it means my opponent hasn't even responded to my point entirely. Contention 2 Rebuttal: My opponent acknowledges the inequality between adults and juveniles in this scenario, for one thing, but then he says that there's no such inequality between adults and juveniles. It's clear that in my opponent's response, he's conflicted in his own reasoning. Furthermore, he provides no real context for the iteration of human rights, so there's no way to evaluate his rebuttal. Finally, the inequality here is the inbalance between rights and responsibility. A teenager can be held as responsible as an adult, but a teenager cannot have as many rights as an adult. In order for fairness to exist here, there has to be an equal level, and to state otherwise is nothing more than a double-standard. Contention 1 (Opponent Case): For one thing, my opponent provides no evidence for this. I could say that despite the existence of these sentences, people still commit crimes, meaning that deterrence doesn't always function, and since there's no way to evaluate a comparison between deterrence and rehabilitation considering my opponent's lack of evidence, he can't say that deterrence will be more functional than rehabilitation. I have provided, judges, an example of where rehabilitation is greatly functional, as you may have already realized.