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

( I have never done LD, but I am familiar with the rules and format and such.) NC, then AC I negate the Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system I define the following terms: Merriam Webster Dictionary defines Juvenile as "a young person" Merriam Webster Dictionary defines Treat as "to discuss terms of accommodation or settlement" Merriam Webster Dictionary defines Ought as "implying obligation" In the status quo, a democracy such as the United States treats those who are charged with crimes in a way that respects their rights. This is a critical part of justice in a democracy. Further, treat implies that juveniles will be sent to adult prison and subjected to adult punishments Thus, I value Democracy. Prefer this value because it is critical that the United State's upholds its core values in it its government. Note that this value encompasses my opponent's value of the social contract theory, thus, mine should be preferred. In order to achieve the value of democracy, we must uphold its core values. Thus, whichever world upholds democracy's values better wins the round. Contention 1: Treating juveniles as adults does not respect their rights A democracy must respect the rights of the criminal. Thus, if the negative shows that, in the aff world, the criminals' rights are not respected then you negate. Sub Point A- Juveniles are frequently subject to abuse in adult prison. Ziedenberg and Schirald report: Ziedenberg, J., & Schiraldi, V. (August 1998). The risks juveniles face: housing juveniles in adult institutions is self-destructive and self-defeating. Corrections Today. , 60, n5. p.22 [Jason Ziedenberg and Vincent Schiraldi are researchers with the Justice Policy Institute.] A 1989 study by a team of researchers, led by Professor Jeffrey Fagan of Columbia University's School of Public Health, compared how youths at a number of juvenile training schools and those serving time in adult prisons reported being treated. Five times as many youths held in adult prisons answered yes to the question, "Has anyone attempted to sexually attack or rape you?" than those held in juvenile institutions. Nearly 10 percent of the youths interviewed reported that another inmate had attempted to sexually attack or rape them in adult prisons, while closer to 1 percent reported the same in juvenile institutions. Ziendnberg and Schirald continue: Ziedenberg, J., & Schiraldi, V. (August 1998). The risks juveniles face: housing juveniles in adult institutions is self-destructive and self-defeating. Corrections Today. , 60, n5. p.22 [Jason Ziedenberg and Vincent Schiraldi are researchers with the Justice Policy Institute.] There is a dearth of data on rape, suicide and assault rates among the 4,000 juveniles who are sentenced to adult prisons, as well as the 65,000 children who pass through the adult jail system every year. Some states lump suicide deaths under the category "unspecified cause," making the problem invisible. Other states and jurisdictions list rape among "inmate assaults" - effectively masking the problem. Academics in this field warn that any statistics on rape are "very conservative at best, since discovery and documentation of this behavior are compromised by the nature of prison conditions, inmate codes and subcultures, and staff attitudes." There also are obvious incentives for prison officials to underreport incidents of rape and suicide because they are administratively embarrassing to the prison system, and could be used as evidence for lawsuits. Thus, it is clear that the rights of the juvenile criminals are being violated more in adult prison than juvenile prison because they are subject to more abuse in adult prison than in juvenile detention and instances of abuse in adult prison go unreported. This does not protect their rights so it does not uphold democracy. Sub Point B- If juveniles were treated as adults, they would be subject to cruel and unusual punishments. In the case, Roper vs. Simmons the Supreme Court ruled that putting a juvenile to death is cruel and unusual punishment. However, if juveniles were treated as adults they would be subject to this punishment as well, going against the Constitution. Thus, the affirmative cannot be looked to because it cannot uphold the Constitution and therefore cannot uphold the democracy of the United States. On the AC He begins with an anecdote about one long ago case in which he feels (and thinks the judge will feel) as if improper punishment was served. This is an appeal to emotion. Also, this is not sufficient to vote aff, because aff would have all juveniles treated as adult so this one situation does not matter. Further, he has not shown what was wrong with the outcome of the case. He values the social contract. This is not only encompassed by Democracy but it also cannot be looked to because juveniles cannot engage in a social contract. They cannot engage in a social contract because they are unable to vote and thus unable to participate in government and thus are not bound by the social contract. My opponent's VC of holding juveniles accountable for their actions is non-unique because juvenile courts do the same. My opponent is loosing the framework debate so we must look to mine. On his 1st Contention: Point A.) Feld provides no reason how juvenile courts alienate their rights. This card cannot be looked to because my opponent has not provided a reason which supports the assertion that juvenile courts restrict rights. Further, his source says that juveniles treated as adults would be at a disadvantage, which works for the negative side and is a turn. Also, juveniles in adult prison are less protected because they are abused. Further, he has not shown juvenile courts do not respect their rights, and, since adult courts harm juveniles more, thus infringing on their rights more, this point cannot be looked to. Because juveniles charged with violent felonies have their rights infringed on more when treated as adults, this works against the affirmative. Point B.) I did not argue rehabilitation. Thus, this is irrelevant because it in no way shows why you must vote aff. On his 2nd Contention Point A.) I did not argue that juveniles do not know the consequences of their actions. So, this point is irrelevant. Point B.) Turn this. He is advocating the neg because he is saying that their should be taken into account. Thus, they would be treated differently, thus, this works for the neg because they would not be treated as adults, they would be treated differently. So, this point works for neg. Even if you adopt the affirmative's framework, the negative links into the social contract theory better than the affirmative because: One, juveniles do not engage in the social contract, while adults do, meaning that juveniles ought to be treated differently under the social contract. Two, the negative shows that the rights of the juveniles would be infringed on more in an aff world than the neg world. The aff has no offense at this point and their offense isn't even sufficient to vote aff because it has no reasons as to why the things occur, just assertions. Thus, I negate