New Member Tournament: Juveniles Tried as Adults

Thanks for the response, Lick. Rebuttal/Case: RE: Brain Development and Environment I’d like to note that we aren’t determining whether a 7 y. o. kid should face adult court of murder or rape, we need to consider teenagers, particularly the ones near the legal age of adulthood. But, if we determine someone’s maturity based on their numerical age on every case, chances are, the justice system would be a joke. We need to determine one’s maturity by the culpability from a legal perspective and not the age per se. Moin Yahya from the University of Alberta states in a Law Review journal that, and I quote: “Simply because the average youth is less mature than the average adult does not mean that the particular juvenile who commits a heinous crime is less culpable.” {1} Now, according to that journal, it showed that according to economic studies, juveniles are somewhat very rational and mature, a behavioral examination experiment and survey was conducted to a group of children, ages 7, ages 11 and undergraduates (ages 21), in the end they found out that average 11 year olds already developed their cognitive skills. We can assume, based on this reliable study, that there are children who are very mature and rational. {1b} According to the Coalition for Juvenile Justice in Washington DC, they state that: “Adolescents commonly experience “reward-deficiency syndrome,” which means they are no longer stimulated by activities that thrilled them as younger children. Thus, they often engage in activities of greater risk and higher stimulation in efforts to achieve similar levels of excitement.” {2}{3} If people are officially mature at 25, then why not change the official adult age to 25 instead of 18? Because if we did that, we would be treating the most notorious age-appropriate criminals as children, it gives justice a bad name, the same thing goes to treating mature teens as childish kids. I mean, what’s the difference between a 17 3/4 year old and an 18 year old adult? This just means that the average teen shouldn’t be treated as an average 6 year old who likes to play with ponies or robots, there may be psychological differences with kids and adults, but they are rational and capable of doing something bad, thus we need to take them seriously. Also, in addition to the arguments above, I’d like to expand this premise by continuing to talk about the Bulger case. The defense made their argument by using the conclusive presumption (or doli incapax) as a defense, which the prosecution refuted triumphantly. Doli incapax is presumes that a delinquent can’t be held accountable for any felonious wrongdoings, and thus can’t be convicted of a crime. {4} But a few years after the Bulgar case, the defense of said presumption for defendants underage was abolished by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, stating that “...The rebuttable presumption of criminal law that a child aged 10 or over is incapable of committing an offence is hereby abolished.”, therefore making the age of criminal responsibilility in the UK to 10 y. o. {4} How was the presumption rebutted? Well, the child psychiatrist (Dr. Eileen Vizard) who interviewed the suspects, testified that they exactly knew what was right or wrong, it was obvious, and if we think rationally, taking an innocent toddler from his mom was wrong and torturing and eventually killing the baby was wrong, she answered this with certainty under oath. {5}{6}{7} Jonathan Foster, from The Independent, argued that if the defendants were incapable and immature at trial, then why did they waive their rights, why did they have the capacity to even stand trial and make a defense? {7} The evidence was crystal clear, the abduction to eye witnesses to expert witnesses to the murder per se. But bottomline, the case had nothing to do on whether the suspects knew on what was right or wrong, the capability of the suspects and the severity of the crime was obvious from the start. RE: Special Punishment for Juvies CON argues that putting kids in prison is a bad idea because of brain differences, again, I remind everyone that the ‘kids’ that we are referring to are the ones charged with murder/rape, which, as I’ve proven, is known as a violent and serious offense and the juveniles know this, they are capable on knowing what is right or wrong. And with the arguments I’ve shown on what type of juveniles commit such heinous acts, it’s less likely that a 10 year old or below would murder. Putting a murderer behind bars does something good to society, it gives retribution to the victim’s loved ones and it serves justice to all. Now, my opponent argues that rehabilitation is an important way of punishing as it helps youths. But, as I’ve shown in my previous argument, it does not. Rehabilitation, first and foremost, fails. It increases recidivism and does not deter potential crimes. According to Maia Szalavitz in an article she published from TIME {8}, she cited a research that shows teens got worst in rehab, since those who entered the juvie proceedings were nearly 7 times more likely to be arrested for crimes as adults. Also, the likelihood of the ones sentenced to juvie prison and being re-arrested is 37 times, unlike youths who weren't put through the system. Furthermore, it suggested that youths who go through the juvie system even for a little time are more likely to be rearrested as adults, and yes, this comparing with youths with the same behavioral issues who didn’t go through the juvie system. It also suggested that being put on probation/rehab raised the youth's odds of adult arrest by a factor of 14. It also cited a study comparing teenager’s impact on 4 interventions: parenting groups aimed in discipline, social-skills-training group, parent/teen-focused group interventions or no intervention at all, the results showed that the parent-focused group was the most compelling, where it made a reduction in teen misbehaviors. Next, according to the statistics presented by the Missouri Juvenile Justice Association {1}, it showed that teens appear to be more responsible and being charged of violent crimes (esp. murder) than adults during that increase the past decade, and according to said statistics, people under 25 (including juveniles) are committing more crimes than adults, or people of the mature brain, this just shows that the seriousness of this issue ought have a solution, to serve justice. And even today, delinquents are more likely to be caught and charged with a crime than adults, this just shows how serious this is and we need to take them seriously. {9}{10} Conclusion: It is clear from the start that the issue is about juvies tried as adults on murder/rape, and murder is murder, it's the most serious of all offenses, everyone knows this, even juvenile delinquents, saying that their brain isn’t developed is ridiculous and ludicrous, giving them a free pass on murder just because they claim they didn’t know that killing was wrong is frivolous and is unreasonable. I’ve given evidence that harsher punishment does deter potential and that rehabilitation does not work, it has shown the increase of recidivism rates. Incarcerating dangerous delinquents protect the innocent. It sends a huge message against committing crime and thus reduces crime. It serves justice, since one of justice’ primary role on society is to ultimately protect the innocent, the potential victims and the victims per se who grieve for justice and retribution. Ergo trying juvenile delinquents is justified via deontological ethics and under utilitarian view of justice by determining accountability/culpability of the offender. I’ve also argued previously that adult courts are more beneficial than juvie courts, since they value juvenile rights more, juvie courts fail to deter juvie violence and that again, in order to enforce justice, we need to give retribution, not only failed treatment. Now, I leave the floor to my opponent and await her rebuttals/defense, good luck! :) References: http://goo.gl...