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

I am for the positive side. Juveniles charged with violent felonies definitely should be treated as adults. I would first like to point out that my opponent used the word "trialed" I do not understand what this word entirely means, but I have assumed (possibly for contradiction; who knows?) that my opponent meant "tried" instead. Moving on from my pet peeve, I would also like to say that my side is not required to defend every single thing that a juvenile does against the law as being treated as an adult. It is only when a juvenile commits a violent felony, does my side apply. If a juvenile is old enough to commit a violent felony, then (s)he is old enough to be tried as an adult. "Oh no! You terrible person; how could you say that?" I'll give you several reasons why I would make such a statement. My opponent points out that not all state legislatures give juveniles rights to jury trials, however, this argument is both flawed and irrelevant because if juveniles were to be treated as adults, they would also be afforded the complete right of adults, thus rendering my opponents' argument useless. If a juvenile is accused of committing a violent felony, then he or she is entitled to receive every right and treatment that an adult might receive both good or bad. Going back to rebut a portion of the unorganized information that my opponent has thrown out, when my opponent states that children under seven "can not be charged with crime including murder because of lack of criminal intent" she does not say why keeping a system in place is always a better option, which I contest, and she also fails to explain how we know that seven-year-old children "lack criminal intent". It seems that her basis for this part of the argument is due to personal stereotype, and bias, assuming that seven-year-olds are a certain way without actually having anything to back it up. My opponent has argued that juveniles lack the mental capacity that adults have, and I both agree and disagree with this statement. I think that the statements my opponent made were sweeping generalizations, and to impersonal. On the whole, she is right because juveniles are still developing and change when they become adults, however, some adults are less mentally capable and stable than juveniles. Yes, there are mentally disabled adults who commit violent felonies; should they be tried any differently, if the law sufficiently protects their rights? I think not, and neither should juveniles have a different set of rules and regulations. Going back to my previous argument about intelligence, the assertion that people under the age of 18 cannot be treated the same way as adults is extremely ageist. There is no magic number for competency or knowing right from wrong. Scientific studies are averages, and let's face it; there is no such thing as an average person. The adult system of defense allows defendants to use insanity as a defense and not understanding the consequences of one's actions or that something is wrong as a solid defense. Lawyers can request a psychological evaluation for the defense, and if the juvenile is legitimately not responsible or his or her actions, then the defend can be found not guilty. Just because someone is tried as an adult doesn't mean a conviction. Lawyers can also request an IQ test to show competency, and if a child cannot pass an ADULT (because if they are treated as adults, then they will be given adult tests) IQ test, it is very likely that the prosecution will have lost its case. The argument that juveniles are not capable of making correct decisions is stated, to put it bluntly, without any factual evidence to back it up, and it is also slightly insulting. This "regression" that my opponent addresses does not necessarily prevent anyone from knowing right from wrong. Indeed I would think that many adults have "regressed" if they have stooped low enough to commit violent felonies. I, being a juvenile myself, indeed believe it is possible through fourteen years of continuous research, for juveniles to make correct decisions. People like me being held to a lower standard than adults is a clear example of injustice. If an individual lacks certain capabilities, than a test for competency, and emotional health is sufficient to determine responsibility, not some magic philosophy, that when you turn 18 you suddenly start to become a viable decision maker. When my opponent argues that juveniles are more capable of change than adults, she fails to mention why this is relevant. If a prison judge has received psychological analysis that cites a strong likelihood for change, than it should be taken into accord for sentencing. An adult who is schizophrenic is subject to a strong likelihood for change if treatment is applied, and so are some juveniles, but the basis for this should not be age, but instead individual traits, including intelligence, understanding, compassion, and well-being. The entire negative position is based on an underlying and poorly concealed value of ageism, which is a flawed philosophy because everyone is different, and therefore the negative position is a flawed one.