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

Thanks for accepting. Before I rebuttal the arguments I would like to post the rest of my second contention. I am so so sorry, I didn't not realize it had cut it of. . To further support my position Judi Smetana a psychologist and professor at the University of Rochester has found that children as young as the age as 3 and 4 are able to recognize certain behaviors such as hitting as wrong, even when no one is watching. Although our brains may not be as emotionally developed as much as they could be, juveniles do know the differences between right and wrong and when it comes to committing wrongful actions, and that is what matters when it comes down to sentencing for crimes. I end you with this, because As there is no action without reaction, there shouldn't a crime without punishment afterwards. Even juveniles are subject to laws and are obliged to behave accordingly. Should they fail to do so, it would be unjust to let them - almost freely - get away with and is why I stand in Affirmation. Allright, so lets start of with attacking her arguments and affirming my contentions with Contention 1 Sub A I have many responses. -The location example was just an example of the important factors in the cases with violent felonies. Other factors could include the weapon used or what the crime was. You can't weigh age in it because those factors are always changing and not everyone is the same age. What matter is the crime at hand. -If a mentally Handicapped person is able to commit a violent felony, the adult court system still needs to handle the case. It can look at the issues at hand just as well as a juvenile system could and they can sentence them to other places other than jail or prison to solve for those problems. Also, they will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the handicap truly affected the decision to commit the violent felony. Just because your handicapped, doesn't mean you do not know the difference between right and wrong. -the only profound distinction I find in my observation's the fact that the possibility of a 3 year commuting a murder versus a 13 year, is in favor of the 13 year old. I also give reasoning to back up my age limit. -as for rational thinking, all they have to know is the difference between whether thier action was right or wrong. Sub-B -the penalties are more servere because the crime is more brutal. If a juvenile is able to committ a more serious violent felony, thier punishment should be more severe. -im not saying the attoneys are lacing of incompetence, im saying they are lacking in time to build a solid case. Sub C -yeaa, that was just kinda a tester sub point. I am willing to drop it because its not really hindering or helping my case. Contention two We will discuss it more oin detail after my oponet gets all the facts. Conclusion -thier first contention supports my postion. Just becasue they are a juvenile does not mean they are not a criminal. -in the last section they state they have a better chance to change, therefore they should get a lower sentence. But when one starts using this logic, any adult that has the ability to change, becaus they are out there, should also be given a lower sentence for thier crime. This arguement can not be wieghed into today's debate because using this type of logic is going to allow the criminal justice systems to be questions and will ultimatly undermine it. As we can see, charging a juvenile is a justifyed action that gives the convict thier jus dues and protects society. Thank You.