In the U.S Juveniles ought to be treated as adults in the Crim justice system

Thanks to ResilientKeii for posting this interesting resolution. For those of you reading this debate who have not viewed the commentary, the resolution must be read with a "NOT" in it: Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought NOT to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system Definitions RK has defined "juvenile" to mean "young person" or "youth". but left the actual ages ambiguous. Since the proposition is status quo, I will use the status quo age of 18 for adulthood. But "youth" or "young person" do not denote an infant. A toddler is not a "youth". The lower end of the limit must also be defined, and as my friend has left it undefined I will say that a "youth" or "juvenile" is a human being older than 14 years but less than 18 years of age. Merriam Webster online defines a felony as "a serious crime (such as murder or rape)." While true that in the US felonies are punished by >1 year in jail, many crimes may be either felonies or misdemeanors: the seriousness determines whether it is a felony. My friend's technical definition is correct but avoids the crux of the issue: felonies are serious crimes. Finally, he did not set the scope of the "treatment". Since we are talking about felonies and sentences, I will restrict my arguments to convicted felons and therefore we will be discussing differences in sentencing and punishment of youth and adults. I have no doubt that when we have concluded not only will RK have failed to establish the efficacy of the present distinction, but also that I will have established the counter-proposition: youths of ages 15-17 who are convicted of felonies should be sentenced as adults in the US Criminal Justice System. Rebuttal RK 'observes' that "If [he] can prove one time when juveniles will not be treated as adults then [he] wins this debate." The resolution specifically refers to the Criminal Justice System ("CJS"). Therefore, the question is whether adopting the resolution would make the CJS better or worse. My friend as 'observed' a standard of perfection that is unreasonable: we are looking for a better system, not a perfect one. Similarly, he 'observes' that rehabilitation is a main goal of the existing youth system and asserts the conclusion that it is 'better' for juveniles.That confuses goals with results: there is no evidence that the focus of the youth system achieves superior rehabilitation to the adult system. It also implies a false binary: the adult criminal justice system also includes rehabilitation as an objective; the question is not if, but how much. He has also mistakenly shifted the focus of the debate onto the welfare of criminals. It may be better for youths accused of serious crimes to get a slap on the wrist; it may be better for murderers to have a get out of jail free card. The CJS is intended to "enforce the standards of conduct necessary to protect individuals and the community." Its purpose is the protection of 300 million law-abiding Americans, not the coddling of convicted felons. My friend's first contention is a red herring. He admits that there "juvenile death penalty is not prohibited" under international treaty but suggests that many states would look down on the US for executing youths. He ignores the fact that several states already execute youths: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... He also fails again to demonstrate that this would reflect a real change: most developed countries (including closest neighbours and largest trading partners Canad and Mexico) already look down on states having capital punishment. the proposer can only frighten us that they will look down a little more. http://en.wikipedia.org... More importantly, their views are irrelevant to the protection of Americans from serious crimes, and this, not maintaining rosy diplomatic relations with Sweden, is the purpose of the CJS. If the death penalty is abhorrent, then all states may abolish it, but this debate is not about the merits of capital punishment. Where a State believes 18-year olds who commit murder should be hanged, then 17 year-olds who commit murder should also be hanged. His second contention attempts to raise our emotions by conjuring the 10-year-old boy who gets caught stealing, but shoplifting is not a felony offence and therefore not captured by the resolution! Similarly, criminal conviction requires mens rea, the guilty mind, and the accidental discharge of a gun should not be a crime regardless of whether the shooter is a youth - ask Dick Cheney! http://en.wikipedia.org... All the examples raised in sub-point A are irrelevant to the resolution as defined. He cites medical evidence that "the mind continues to change shape as people reach their 30s and up to their late 40s." But surely he is not suggesting that thirty-year olds be treated as insufficiently developed for criminal responsibility! Again, this is a false dichotomy. The question from the cognitive perspective is whether they are sufficiently developed to have criminal intent and responsibility, not "fully" developed by some magic standard. Sub-point B is little more than a tautology. He states, without any supporting evidence, that because the goal of youth detention centres is rehabilitation, they are in fact better at achieving it, once again mistakenly conflating goals and outcomes, and mistakenly focusing on the convicted felon instead of the safety of law-abiding Americans. Argument: Youths 15-17 convicted of felonies should be sentenced as adults for compelling reasons: Separation: Incarceration is the only certain way to prevent those convicted of serious crimes like rape and murder from harming others. The protection of law-abiding Americans is paramount. Mature Enough for Criminal Intent: 16 year olds can drive cars, deadly hunks of metal roaring down highways at 60 mph. They can have and consent to sexual relations. While they're admittedly not 100% mature, they will not be 100% mature until they are 40! They are mature enough to recognize the most serious criminal acts are wrongful, and not commit them. 16 year olds understand rape and murder. Denunciation: The focus on youth's immaturity promotes irresponsibility. The most serious crimes need to be denounced by serious punishment: incarceration for a year or more. Prevention: Gangs actually recruit youth into lives of crime because they know they are note exposed to the same sentencing. According to the National Crime Prevention Council, schools are the #1 choice to recruit. If we really want to reduce youth criminality, we must reduce this inappropriate social incentive to commit crimes prior to age 18. http://www.ncpc.org... Cost: The maintenance of a separate system is much more expensive, and ultimately the CJS needs to reduce costs and focus on punishing the most serious crimes - felonies - no matter who commits them. The system is broken: In spite of the protections that exist in theory, the US still imprisons more youth than any other nation. The Youth facilities my friend promotes are just as dangerous as the prisons he vilifies. http://en.wikipedia.org... Questions Do you think it is more important to focus on the accused felon than on protecting law-abiding Americans? Do you think 15 and 16 year olds don't understand the seriousness of crimes like rape and murder? Do you think we should wait until brain maturity at 35 or 40 before using prisons? What about people who never each full maturity - should they never be held responsible? Do you admit youth detention centres are training grounds for young gangsters?