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

My opponent seems to assume that, juveniles possibly being punished less would not uphold deontological standards. In fact, this actually proves my case. Juveniles, due to their age, shouldn't receive as harsh punishment as adults. But this does not justify a juvenile system that treats an individual who commits a crime the day before they are 18 as fundamentally different than someone the day after they are 18. By allowing juveniles to be tried in adult court, we allow the court to consider the maturity of the individual when determining punishment. The difference is that we do not set an arbitrary line at the day one turns 18 that classifies people under 18 as irrational and those over 18 as rational. I recently turned 18 and I did not receive a glowing present called "rationality." Rationality is progressive and we shouldn't have a court system that arbitrarily divides defendants. My opponent seems to suggest that juveniles are receiving there due since they are subjected to rape in the juvenile system. THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF JUSTICE! JUVENILES DO NOT DESERVE RAPE EVEN THOSE WHO COMMIT VIOLENT FELONIES! My opponent contradicts himself when he says, on the one hand, that he agrees juveniles are different than adult but then, on the other, that the juvenile system should remain in place because it punishes them so harshly. Also, my opponent makes a point about how juries would be more likely to be hung in an adult court and this argument actually proves my case! The burden of proof the prosecution must meet is much higher in adult court than in juvenile court. Juveniles have much fewer rights protections in juvenile court than in adult court. Furthermore, as I stated in my case, adult courts can decide which punishment is suitable based on the culpability of the individual. Courts can take the age of the defendant into account when determining proper punishment. With this understanding, the idea that juries will convict fewer juveniles makes no sense, unless the court is pursuing an overly harsh punishment, in which case they should not be convicted. My opponent states that prosecutors can make exceptions and try juveniles in adult court. The problem here is that there is still an inconsistency of treatment in that an individuals who commits a crime the day before they are 18 is able to defend them-self twice, once in the case of whether they should be tried as a child or an adult and then in their adult trial. However, An individual who commits the exact same crime the day after they are 18 does not have such a luxury. Treating equals unequally is the definition of an injustice, but this is exactly what having two systems based on an arbitrary line at 18 does. My opponent then goes on to discuss how a juvenile is not as culpable as an adult. The example my opponent gives of a six year killing their brother or sister but not understanding what they have done is no crime at all. A crime only occurs if there is a criminal intent and an awareness of what one is doing. These are defenses that are available in the adult court system. If an immature child commits a crime, the court can take into account that the child is immature. Furthermore, my opponent seems to suggest that it is only in the juvenile system where rehabilitation is possible but this is simply not true. The Adult Court system provides judges the capability of mandating rehabilitative services. Thus, my opponent has failed to show any unique advantages of a juvenile Justice system. Furthermore, my opponent makes a HUGE CONTRADICTION. He says, on the one hand, that he agrees with the evidence by Dr. Moin which states that juveniles respond to increased punishment while, on the other, he states here that children would not respond to such punishment. I do not know which statement to attack since they are mutually exclusive but I would like to point out that the argument my opponent makes throughout his case that juries would not convict six year old children holds no weight because I am not claiming such juries should convict these six year olds. The court should decide a punishment that, based on evidence of maturity, is appropriate and if it is fair the jury will accept it and if it is not the jury will reject it. Furthermore, my opponent states that we should allow the judge to decide what punishment is appropriate but the adult system can ensure proper punishment as well. Most adult courts allow judges a great amount of flexibility in what punishment to give and if the prosecution is pushing for punishment that is overly harsh, the jury will reject it but if the punishment being pursued in fair, the jury will accept it. I completely agree with my opponent when he says that reducing crime should only be a factor. That is why the entire framework of my case is based on the necessity of considering utilitarian AND deontological concerns (giving people what they are due). I meet both of these concerns because I reduce crime, as my opponent admits by agreeing with Dr. Moin's study, and ensure juveniles receive what they are due by allowing culpability, that is, blameworthiness as the factor of determining sentencing rather than whether the individual is younger or older than an age arbitrarily set. My opponent responds to the evidence I present about rape in the juvenile justice system by saying that this proves the juvenile justice system in "no cake walk" This I find absolutely astonishing. NO CAKE WALK! THEY ARE BEING RAPED! LITTLE CHILDREN! I DON'T WANT A SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS THIS! And as a matter of fact yes, the adult system is safer because most prisons can provide for separating juveniles from the rest of the prison population and it is an area where guards have not deliberately chosen to be around children. When you have guards for juvenile systems you have a much greater risk those who accepts the jobs are pedophiles because a job description of having a position of authority over children who's stories may not be believed by other adults is like a flashing neon light for pedophiles. In summary, my opponent has absolutely ZERO ground as all of his arguments have fallen or have actually benefited my case. A major argument my opponent has made is that juveniles will not be as easily found guilty in the adult court system which I have shown is not true given the ability of courts to factor in maturity to determine a proper punishment along with the added benefit of greater rights protection in adult court. The other major argument my opponent has made is that prosecutors are able to ask that certain juveniles be tried in adult court but this still creates an unfair system because an individual who commits a crime the day before they are 18 is able to defend themselves twice, once in juvenile court and once in adult court and only has to win one of these, while an individual who commits THE VERY SAME CRIME ONLY GETS ONE TRIAL. TREATING EQUALS UNEQUALLY IS THE DEFININTION OF AN INJUSTICE!.