New Member Tournament: Juveniles Tried as Adults

Opening: These are my arguments for the opening round. Please note that I may introduce new arguments/rebuttals as the debate proceeds further. C1: Law & Order a) Victims deserve justice I’ll begin citing a classic English case about the killing of little James Bulger, (1993, UK), a 2-year old toddler and her mother were at a mall shopping when two 10-year olds took little James and brought him to a 2 mile death march, when they reached to the middle of nowhere, they began to bully him, then engaged to severe torturing, threw paint in his eyes, inserted batteries in his mouth & anus, and hitting him with metals and rocks and then dropped a 22 pound iron bar on him, then eventually murdering little James, the boys left him in the train track until a train ran over and cut little James’ body in half. The youths were eventually arrested and were put to trial, though they were found guilty and sentenced, they only serve for 10 years and were released with new identities and are now having a life {1}. Little James This isn’t justice, little James deserves to have a life than his two murderers, but it won’t happen, ever, he died in vain, so what to suggest to fix this problem? See below. b) Harsher Punishment = Deterrence We can reduce lawbreaking rates if we punish those people responsible, the same goes to a juvenile delinquent, if a child goes through juvenile court and if that child is advised and taught on its main objective and usual process, which is rehab after conviction, or plea bargain resulting to probation and suspended sentence {2}, the child is more likely to think that they will be set free very soon, it’s like attending a boarding school, this really doesn’t make them scared, it surely doesn’t deter much crimes, especially the violent ones, but, if a child has knowledge of harsher punishments and consequences when committing felonious acts, then they will more likely be afraid of the consequences of the law. Christine Chamberlin, from Boston College Law Review, states that: {3} “Part of the reason that juveniles aren’t deterred by punishments for juvenile crimes might be that juvenile proceedings are still fairly confidential in many states. Transferring jurisdiction to adult court, however, would allow these proceedings to be more open to the public, increasing awareness among juveniles of the possibility of trial in adult court. Thus, insofar as Massachusetts’ youthful offender statute allows youthful offender trials to be 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. ” C2: Astringency of Crime a) Delinquents know that murder/rape is unacceptable Every person knows that killing another person with malice is never acceptable, kids have been taught these values and morals in school, they know what they’re doing, parents, teachers and even television gives the youth a tip on what happens when you murder. b) Psychologically different? Some people argue that the young are too young to be treated as adults when they are put on trial for murder, again, young or not, these youths know that what they did was wrong, it doesn’t matter, just because a child is a child doesn’t that the particular child who commits murder is less demeritorious. Many people view adolescents being able to decide for themselves, being mature, like driving age, age of consent, they don’t need special treatment from the government, but why do juvie courts do? If a youth is old and competent enough to use a computer, he is more likely to be competent when picking up a gun and shoot people, which makes him competent enough to murder someone. Guns don’t kill, people do, and by that, we need to hold these youths responsible. There are childish and immature children as well as naive, gullible and immature adults, but there are intellectual and well-educated adults as well as smart and responsible child prodigies. C3: Downside of Juvenile Jurisdiction a) Advantages of adult courts In US juvie courts, there is no jury, or no jury is often implemented {4}, the decision of whether or not the young defendant is guilty of murder or rape rests solely on the judge, which is a disadvantage since judges are sometimes biased and has a docket longer than Frederica Cook’s will, but when charged as an adult, the decision rests on the jury, the defendant gets a decent judge and decent lawyer. You might argue that juvie is a good thing because judges will punish murderers but, again, juvie court is not that decent, and that delinquents are not having their rights properly exercised, and I’m also arguing, what if, the defendant is innocent? Will we just let the judge decide to incarcerate the sentenced youth to rehab for years? b) Rehabilitation? The juvenile system focuses the youths on rehabilitation rather than punishment, this seems shallow and soft. There are occasions where youths are convicted but only serve for 1 year due to them having their 18th birthday the year after their sentence, that’s not just nor is it fair, just because a boy murdered a woman before his 8th birthday doesn’t mean that he should be treated as a kid, which would make a difference if he murdered the woman after his 18th birthday, we need to allow the youth’s accountability and culpability to establish a degree of the punishment’s astringency. Sentencing teen murderers to rehab undermines the justice system, no one should get away from the law. *I will expand these contentions in the next round. In the meantime, I await my opponent’s response, thank you. * Reference: {1} . http://goo.gl... {2} . http://goo.gl... {3} Christine Chamberlin, Not Kids Anymore: A Need for Punishment and Deterrence in the Juvenile Justice System, 42 B. C. L. Rev. 391 (2001). {4} . http://goo.gl...