juveniles charged with a violent felony ought to be treated as adults in the USA

"Since the "Age of Responsibility" varies from State to State, we can utilize the age of twelve as an average (twelve is also the Age of Responsibility in Canada). " He claims I never contradicted this, in fact I did. I contended that the definition of a juvenile is up to the states to decide, not the federal government, this essentailly teaches the states responsiblity and good judgment. Plus that's ridculous. Why would we average the Age of reponsiblity. I'm sure no state has twelve as the age of a nonjuvenile. furthermore, we aren't talking about canada, we are talking about The USA. "Firstly, I've never stated that all juveniles are horrible murderers. This is especially true since all young people are "juvenile," and it is only the "juvenile delinquents" that this debate regards. " I don't see why this even matters. Actually he is wrong because he concedes to my charged interpretation of the resolution. You are not a delinquent if you haven't been convicted yet. Nowhere in the resolution does it say "delinquents. " He says that even juveniles charged with violent felonies have substantial evidence against them, I contend that's not always true, once again even if all the evidence in the world was against a juvenile he is still innocent until proven guilty so we can't just say "Oh that guy appears horrible, let's just plan ahead and think what we're going to do to huim in prison" I'm sure none of us would like that to happen to us. It is at this age that a young person begins to understand morality, consequentialism and crime. Therefore, a young person realizes that there are consequences for his/her actions, whether they be right or wrong. "Therefore, a teenager who is armed and assaults somebody with the weapon comprehends fully what will occur to the victim, and also what the consequences should be for that felony. Perhaps to further this, most teenagers realize that a sentence for them will be lighter, and indeed laugh at the pitiful attempts at punishment. " He just admitted that he is debating the charged phase , yet he keeps saying a young child should be held accountable for their actions, we cannot presume their guilt therefore we can't even say they did whatever action he is implying, and he says they should accept consequences, in the charged phase there are no consequences. If we are debating the charged phase, what possible conseuquences must a juvenile bear? Are they going to sent to these horribel adult jails before they've even been convicted? How would that be just. Ok, first off, I'm pretty sure no teenager laughsn at the prospect of being sent to a facility away from their friends and being restricted. He tries to portray juvenile facilities as heaven, don't buy into this, juvenile facilities still punish, just have most focus on rehabilitation, and punishment doesn't necessaarily involve throwiong someone into am filthy prison cell. "Secondly, I'm going to consider the method of how a child obtained his/her weapon. Legally, a person under the age of eighteen can not purchase a firearm, a sword, dagger or even a large knife without a guardian's consent. Carrying gravity knives, daggers and switchblades is an illegal act in Canada and most States (though possession is not necessarily illegal, and some States do permit unconcealed butterfly knives). " Ok, he concedes to the charged not convicted interpreation and then goes on to question how a child obtained firearms? If we indeed abide by the charged phase, we can't assume the child had anything to do with murdering or committing a violent felony against someone else. Obviously, he completely bypasses the clear points I created regarding the valid "Age of Responsibility," which he agreed with. Anybody under the age of twelve is not legally responsible. Legal "Age of responsibility" also rebuts his attempts to establish that, "If a child is to young to vote or bear arms, a child is to young to be sentenced in an adult court. " Legal Age of Responsibility does exist, and is valid. What about permitting fifteen and sixteen year olds to drive, potentially endangering the lives of hundreds? I say the responsiblity to drive and vote are two very different things. A gun is designed to kill, a car is necessary to travel. Those two rights are fundamentally different. Since the "Age of Responsibility" varies from State to State, we can utilize the age of twelve as an average (twelve is also the Age of Responsibility in Canada). My opponent has not addressed that the people within this age comprehend the consequences. Therefore, insofar, this crucial portion of the debate rests in my favour. " ON to my case: Extend the Rape analysis, this is going to be huge in the round and a Voter. extend the fact the states, not the federal government have the righto to regulate the Extend the fact that juveniles are not obligated to the government because the government has not given them all their rights in return. ' The charged interpretation kills his case, although he pretends he is abiding by it, which he clearly is not. conclusion: My opponent tries to make up fake arguments and things I conceded to, however if you look at the debate, I never agreed to anything he said.