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

It would be a waste to end the debate here, so I'll just let it slide. Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system. In order to clarify the debate, I offer the following counter definitions: Felony: an offense, as murder or burglary, of graver character than those called misdemeanors, esp. those commonly punished in the U. S. by imprisonment for more than a year. Juvenile: Of, relating to, characteristic of, intended for, or appropriate for children or young people Adult: intended for adults; not suitable for children. My value for the round is Moral Obligation. I ask you judges, if it is moral or not to not take different circumstances into account while giving a sentence as strong as twenty years to a ten year old? There are different circumstances to every crime, and the Affirmative position is too narrow-minded to see that. In order to uphold my case and provide for Moral Obligation, I offer the following criterion as a weighing mechanism for the round: Protection of Human Worth. I ask you judges, if you can protect human worth if you throw a ten year old in jail without parole for a mental problem? Take Eric Smith, for example. At the age of 13, he strangled a 4 year old, slammed two large rocks on his head, and then proceeded to shove a stick up his rectum. Judges, do you really think any sane human being would do such a terrible thing? And do you really think those nine years to life in prison will help his sanity more than a psychologist? Therefore, the Affirmative has the burden to prove that treating juveniles charged with violent felonies treated as adults in the criminal justice system Protects Human Worth. The Negative has the burden to prove that if you do not treat juveniles charged with violent felonies as adults in the criminal justice system, you Protect Human Worth. Contention 1: Juveniles brains aren't as developed as Adults. According to Terence T. Gorski is an internationally recognized expert on substance abuse, mental health, violence, & crime and others qualified professionals, (Ed. Judy Layzell. Ortiz, Adam. ) Scientific studies have determined that the human brain undergoes continuous development up to the age of about twenty-one. "Because the brains of juveniles, particularly the frontal lobes, are not fully developed, youths lack the ability to perform critical adult functions, such as plan, anticipate consequences, and control impulses," states Adam Ortiz, a policy fellow with the American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center. Although juveniles should be punished for their crimes, they are not as responsible as adults. "This is the premise beneath society's across-the-board restrictions on voting rights, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and serving in the armed forces," observes Ortiz. "Indeed, this is why we refer to those under 18 as `minors' and `juveniles'—because, in so many respects, they are less than adult. " By this reasoning, the mere act of punishing a juvenile as an adult is immoral, and therefore does not Protect Human Worth. Contention 2: Punishment doesn't work, it just makes things worse. Gorski presents three principles which should guide the debate regarding adult sentencing of juveniles. First, adolescents are not fully developed mentally and are prone to poor impulse control; second, even the most violent juvenile offender can be rehabilitated with proper treatment; last, the United States has a juvenile justice system that is designed to help youthful offenders, not punish them. "It is important to remember that punishment does not work," asserts Gorski. "Punishment is a failed strategy for changing behavior, teaching new skills, or developing new and more positive attitudes and beliefs. " Contention 3: Youths are easily influenced It's a well known fact that a most juvenile delinquents had a bad upbringing. During the adolescence period, the brain is still forming and learning right from wrong. If in a negative environment, what we in society has come to know as bad, can be known as 'good' for the child. An example would be a case where a Mother began stealing things with her children, hiding things in their pockets and purses. The children were thereby taught that stealing is OK, maybe even if they must use force. The children should not be held responsible, the bad influences should be, be it a parent or a sibling or maybe an older friend who's experienced in the life of crime. Therefore, we should always take different circumstances into account, something the Affirmative cannot do. Sub Point A: Youths should not have access to violent weapons. Guns are usually related to violent crimes juveniles commit. Obviously, you must be 21 to buy and legally own a gun. Who's to blame for letting an underage have possession of such dangerous weapons? Certainly not the juvenile. Maybe the parent didn't fully teach the juvenile right from wrong, and/or carelessly left the gun around. Maybe the juveniles see on T. V. the power the gun has, and can get whatever they want if they have possession of it. Contention 4: You cannot protect Human Worth with the Affirmative position. Professor Palo Annino (Florida State University) expands: Oh, absolutely, I think we're immoral, ultimately as a nation. This is no different from slavery and other major moral issues. Placing children in adult prisons for life is a death sentence for children. Do we want to do that as a society? Do we want to ignore our Western traditions? I mean, we do have Western traditions, and one part of our Western traditions is called redemption, and for many people in our culture redemption is an important value. Instead of throwing a ten year old in jail for a mental problem or simply a mistake, how about we try for redemption and get the children rehabilitation. I will now attack my opponent's case. 1. We look at them as a child because as my Con 1 and Con 3-Sub A states, there are multiple factors that are behind why a child commits violent felonies, such as abuse, growing up in a bad environment, etc. That's not even mentioning the fact that "During the adolescence period, the brain is still forming and learning right from wrong. If in a negative environment, what we in society has come to know as bad, can be known as 'good' for the child. " 2. If we treat Children as Adults in terms of crime, we should treat them as adults in EVERYTHING, such as voting rights, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and serving in the armed forces. It would be hypocritical otherwise. Also, that narrow minded viewpoint doesn't bring in circumstances such as, as I stated, before abuse and growing up in a bad environment.