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

Many thanks once again to Pro for giving me the opportunity to debate this compelling issue. 1A. Pro writes, "Knowing what you did was wrong is what decides your guilt." Suppose for a second I agreed with this statement (and I do) - what does that have to do with being tried in an adult vs. juvenile court? As I explained at length the last round, a juvenile court is just as capable as determining guilt as an adult court, and in fact can dole out the exact same punishments with the exception of the death penalty - the same as adult court in 15 states. As such, this is not a contention in Pro's favor. It does nothing to support the resolution specifically. Pro also says, "Again, just because a juvenile is more susceptible to risky behavior, doesn't mean they totally forget about right and wrong actions." I agree. However as I have been explaining throughout this debate, the juvenile court system does not exempt the minor from any charges and still very much considers the severity of the crime. The difference is that it takes into account the very real biological and thus mental faculty of a minor vs. an adult in determining a proper sentence. As I explained, that is paramount in the *justice* system. 1B. Pro contends that sentencing is based on the severity of the crime, and that is the lone factor taken into consideration in determining the proper punishment. She says characteristics of the defendant cannot be a variable and that the ends of the crime itself must be a constant. However this ignores everything I've been saying about potential defenses, such as insanity pleas [1]. As I pointed out in the last couple of rounds, a mentally handicapped person can use their state of mind as a legitimate defense of their crime. As such, they are often punished by say being sent to mental hospitals instead of prison [2]. Similarly, if we take into consideration of the mental state of deranged individuals, then we necessarily have to consider the "deranged" mindstate of minors who often experience the same severe lack of restraint in particular cases. Once again, this is for the court to decide - the juvenile court. If leniency is appropriate, it will be sentenced that way. Otherwise the juvenile could very easily receive a sentence of life in prison, which has happened many times before [3]. Pro has not denied or tried to scientifically disprove any of the biological evidence I've submitted indicating a distinct difference in rationality between juveniles and adults. Moving on, Pro says that juveniles should be tried as adults because it gives them "more rights" in terms of their case (i.e., a trial by jury vs. a trial by judge). However I've responded by pointing out how both sides have their perks, so this is not an argument in favor of Pro. At best it can be considered equal since there's benefits to both. Pro next argues that juvenile offenders ought to be put in the spotlight, so trying them in adult court is necessary for publicity. First of all I contend this is cruel and unusual. There is no reason for a child to specifically be tormented after-the-fact considering he or she will already be in a lot of trouble. This makes it sound like what I have been saying all along: Pro is after revenge - not justice. Second, what makes you think a juvenile murder case for example wouldn't get even *more* publicity than an adult case? I contend that it most certainly would. Finally, this argument is irrelevant anyway (technically) since you're not supposed to submit new arguments in the final round. Finally on this point, I asked Pro to give us cited evidence proving her point that defense attorneys don't have enough time to build a proper case in juvenile court. However, Pro hasn't given us any evidence, indicating that she is conceding this point. Either that or the audience has no reason to accept that anyway, considering it would be irresponsibly presumptuous. 1C. Pro says that I am "misquoting" what she said. That is simply not true. Once again, I will copy and paste what Pro said verbatim in Round 1: "Youth who are subjected to the more punitive adult court system showed higher rates of recidivism and re-offended more quickly than those youth components that have gone through rehabilitative centers within the criminal justice system." In other words, it says EXACTLY what I have been saying this whole time -- that youth who went through the adult system showed HIGHER RATES OF RE-OFFENDING AND COMMITTING THE CRIMES THAN THOSE WHO WENT THROUGH REHABILITATION INSTEAD. I am the one arguing in favor of rehabilitation for minors. Pro is the one arguing in favor of harsher adult penalties, i.e., the route that leads to people committing crimes once again. Therefore she wants a system that does not achieve justice at all, or that does so only for a short time and can do more harm than good. 2. "When my opponent brings up something from one of her books about how Juveniles and children don't know the difference between right and wrong we will be able to argue this point. Until then, it still stands in this round." In the last round I DID give neurological evidence with cited sources and statistics proving my point about the difference between a minor and adult brain. Pro has absolutely failed to respond to these arguments, meaning she concedes the difference. Please extend all of my arguments which she did not respond to either in the last or final round. Meanwhile, I'll repeat my point that it doesn't matter if the juvenile knew the difference between right and wrong or not. In the last round I admitted that but explained how that was not pertinent to my arguments at all. Finally on this point, Pro says that it doesn't matter that juveniles don't have the same rights as adults in everyday society, because those rights don't have "a real immediate effect on another human being." However that is simply not true; it has an effect on the individual lacking that particular right. Moreover this ignores the point -- that the law clearly shows a distinction in terms of rights/maturity for juveniles on some level, and as such, that line of thinking ought to be extended to the court system or else it is hypocritical and they need to treat juveniles like adults in ALL instances of the law. After all that is only fair. -- Conclusion -- In conclusion, Pro's primary argument is that juveniles know right from wrong; therefore, they ought to be held to the same standards as adults in the criminal justice system. My response has been that this is not the case in order to achieve justice. Pro concludes her round by saying, "Justice is not revenge, justice is being able to take up for your actions or having society punish you for them." However even by those standards, we see no reason to not try a minor in a juvenile court. A juvenile can still be held accountable for their actions and be punished - even to the same extent as adults - while being tried in juvenile court. Throughout this debate I've proven there is a significant distinction in the capacity for a teenager to ration through their actions to the same degree as a functioning adult. The court acknowledges a disparity in responsibility depending on the assailant's mental state; we see that with insanity pleas and mental retardation defenses. As such, the mindstate of a juvenile ought to be considered in particular based on the evidence I've provided throughout this debate. Revenge is punishing someone to maximum capacity just for the sake of doing so; justice is giving someone the punishment they DESERVE. Justice can best be achieved by trying juveniles in the juvenile court system. Thanks again, Pro, and good luck. -- References -- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.wsws.org...