New Member Tournament: Juveniles Tried as Adults

Thanks for the response, Lick, sorry if I rushed you, I actually expected a very long response but since it’s not that long, I’ll make this brief. ^_^ Readers, please note that my opponent’s R4 arguments are in the comments section. Final Rebuttals: “My opponent says that maturity should be determined from a legal standpoint and not from one's numerical age. I agree with this sentiment. Each case should be looked at separately. ” You can vote for PRO right there, voters, as my opponent’s last words clearly affirm the resolution. “I ask my opponent at which age should one be considered an adult? Should children be held up to the same standards as an adult? Obviously a seven year old has not developed to the point of legal maturity. Neither have teenagers. So why should they be treated the same? ” I believe, in my humble and personal opinion, that the legal age of adulthood must be 16-18, even lower, maybe, since I’ve shown previously that teens and pre-teens can think very rationally according to my statistics. Teens are far more different than an average 7 year old, I agree, but we must accept reality that in some cases, we know that teenagers are seriously and rationally capable of committing murder or rape. CON then argues that children don’t have the ability to think before they act, I agree, but we must accept the fact that only some children don’t know what they’re doing, but again, murder is murder. And are juveniles in general have the ability to think before they kill? Of course! We have to accept the severity of the actions and provide justice to the victims. And again, CON argues that we need to help them through treatment, but again, I repeat, rehabilitation fails. “Even a misguided teenager who has committed murder is more receptive to a rehabilitation program than an adult who has committed murder. My opponent brings up the point that more teenagers commit crimes than adults. I believe this shows that teenagers aren't fully developed, and need to learn from their mistakes. ” I repeat, Murder is murder, and stating that juvies are not fully developed when committing murder is ludicrous and frivolous. My opponent’s further arguments to support her defense on special treatment were already refuted, I’ve given evidence that rehab increases recidivism rates and it has other disadvantages, which my opponent didn’t rebut. Final Conclusions: Again, the resolution asks that if we should try juveniles as adults on some cases, and I’ve satisfied my burden on proving that yes, we should try them as adults on some cases. Because it shows a message, to serve justice, to deter crime, to reduce recidivism, and it values and upholds the defendant’s constitutional rights. My opponent’s main case is that juvies are psychologically different and that rehab should apply. These arguments were already refuted before she made her R4 argument. I’d like to ask the readers to please extend my previous arguments in the previous rounds on which my opponent failed to address. To end this, I ask the readers the same question my opponent asked, with further clarification, which sentence is more favorable? Is it the one in which criminals are put behind bars while crime is being deterred and in which the victims can now sleep at night having knowledge that justice was served or is it one in which criminals are given assistance via rehabilitation which we know and I proved, doesn’t let people make better choices but instead, it increases recidivism rates and does not deter crime. Lick, it was an honor debating with you, I hope we debate again soon.