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

What I would first like to address is the contradiction my opponent has made. My opponent states "I read my entire post, but can't figure out what your referring to. Please post next time." My opponent quoted my tagline where I said he contradicted himself but nothing after the tagline where I explained why. This is what I said "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 believe it is clear what I am talking about but I will also post my opponent argument that I am referring to. My opponent states that, "Would this deter other six year olds from committing murder? No." Yet he also says, " I can agree with Dr Moin. I suppose that the crime rate will be lowered somewhat" This is the contradiction I am referring to. "failing to punish juveniles who commit punishable crimes do to jury nullification does not uphold your deontological standards. This will happen because some juries would refuse to send a young child to an adult prison facility." My opponent is just repeating his argument. This doesn't address my attack. I stated that "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." Furthermore, my opponent is assuming rehabilitation is only a part of the juvenile system but this is simply not true. Adult courts provide allow for rehabilitative approaches as well. This is a BIG DEAL BECAUSE IT IS NOT RESPONDED TO BY MY OPPONENT! THIS MEANS THAT IT MUST BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE! I stated that "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." My opponent does not respond to this so we can accept that both provide for rehabilitative services. What unique advantages does the juvenile Justice system have left? "The juvenile system and the adult system already consider maturity of the individual when determining punishment. However, the juvenile system is primarily focused on rehabilitation." Once again, he just says that the juvenile Justice system is focused on rehabilitation while ignoring the fact that this same kind of rehabilitation is available in the adult court system. "Thus, persons that are 17 years old or younger are children and are given lower sentences for the same crime than adults 18 years of age or older. In the United States 18 years old is the age that one becomes legal. With age becomes more freedoms and responsibilities. If there was no arbitrary age that someone became an adult, the person would have to take a competency test for everything." This, I believe, is the only viable argument my opponent has remaining. However, even this argument falls there is a fundamental difference between the court system and having a right sign a contract. The court system determines EVERYDAY the culpability and blameworthiness of individuals. We do not have universal punishments for certain crime but, rather, allow the court to determine how blameworthy an individual is. I am simply saying that, rather than placing people a day before they are 18 in the same category as 10 year olds, we should look at every individual offender, well, individually! "The juvenile system could remain and change the legal standard to be consistent with the adult court. But its better as it is." This isn't a response. My opponent just states their opinion without providing any reason. My argument was that the adult court allows greater rights protections. My opponent just says that the juvenile system could do that, in which case, how would it be any different than adult court? If both provide punishment and rehabilitation and have same rights protection are they not the same? My opponent then just says it is better as it is without providing any warrant. This isn't an argument. "The juvenile courts decide which punishment is suitable based on the culpability of the individual as well." Except that what punishment they are allowed to consider is greatly limited. I go back to the fact that an individual the day before they are 18 can face much less punishment than an individual who commits the exact same crime a day after they are 18. I will let the voters of this debate decide if this is just. "Many adults will not convict children because they fear them going to adult prisons. These kids will go free and never receive the rehabilitation they need. This is precisely why we need a dual court system." My opponent never provides evidence for this and this argument makes no sense when we accept that the adult court can provide rehabilitation, which my opponent has conceded. "Juvenile judges have tremendous flexibility as well. As I noted in my last post, I would not oppose increasing the flexibility to the judge to give longer sentences if necessary." Here my opponent is undermining his own case by defending the juvenile courts on the basis that they can be made more like adult courts. The fact is, juvenile courts have to be limited in sentencing otherwise they are not juvenile courts. "The vetting process with regard to selecting juvenile security guards is extensive. My opponent provides no evidence that this frequently occurs. Moreover, what prevents these same pedophiles from applying for these jobs at the adult court if its so easy. Most people that elect to work with children do so because the like children not because they are pedophiles." It's ironic that my opponent attacks my argument by asserting I have no evidence all the while making a claim that is completely unsupported. MY OPPONENT doesn't provide evidence that the "vetting pocess is extensive." He just says it! Furthermore, I DO PROVIDE EVIDENCE! HERE THEY ARE FROM MY FIRST POST…. "Across the country, 12.1% of kids questioned in the Bureau of Justice Statistics survey said that they'd been sexually abused at their current facility during the preceding year. That's nearly one in eight. In total, according to the most recent data, there are nearly 93,000 kids in juvenile detention on any given day… we can say confidently that the BJS's 3,220 figure represents only a small fraction of the children sexually abused in detention every year." AND " Adults who want to have sex with children sometimes look for jobs that will make it easy. They want authority over kids, but no onerous supervision; they also want positions that will make them seem more trustworthy than their potential accusers." So my opponent's argument that juveniles would be just as at risk in adult prison is refuted by the evidence I provide which shows that having an institution filled with youth that are not trusted will attract pedophiles and this is not just a theoretical but also supported by data. VOTING ISSUES 1)JUVENILE COURT ALLOWS FOR ARBITRARY DIVISION WHICH IS UNJUST 2) MY OPPONENT CONCEDES THAT ADULT COURT CAN PROVIDE REHAB 3) MY OPPONENT HAS FAILED TO OFFER A UNIQUE ADVANTAGE TO JUVENILE COURTS I URGE A PRO BALLOT