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

I'll first review my questions and the take my opponent's questions; again, for those not reading the comments, please note that RK ran out of space and included them there. While I will answer them to maintain the quality of the debate, readers should note that failure to respect time and space limitations. In response to my first question, RK admitted that protecting law abiding Americans is more important than coddling young felons, which may well rest our case. He has suggested it is both 'absurd and illogical' to imagine that 16 year olds can understand the seriousness of crimes like rape and murder. Not only does this fail to respond to the stated comparison (that we do agree they can drive deadly cars,which requires analogous maturity), it is contrary to common sense. While there may be 16 year olds that don't understand that rape is a crime, it is not their age but some other lack of capacity at work. This resolution is not about punishing the insane or incapable. He has failed to understand the point of my third and fourth questions: he acknowledges that there is no magic moment at which the subject becomes mature, but cannot explain why the current line - 18 years of age - is somehow 'right'. If he genuinely believes in his psychological evidence about brain maturity, he should be prepared to wait until 35 or 40 before incarcerating people - only those "fully" mature. If we can and *should* punish adult 20 and 25 year olds rapists who are not yet fully mature but mature enough for responsibility, then we should punish 17 year old rapists in the identical position - mature enough to understand, though not perfectly mature. Opposition's answers to questions: "Q1. How is getting but rapped [sic] in prison more beneficial then rehabilitation?" The question is offensive, but permits a response I will have to repeat several times in this round. The question poses a "false dichotomy" or "false binary". RK has told us that the existing Juvenile system has a greater focus on rehabilitation. He then falsely takes the comparison of more/less and renders it into an absolute duality of all/nothing. Adults in our system currently receive rehabilitation; so do youths. Rape exists in adult prisons and in juvenile detention centres. Rape is bad and rehabilitation is good, but RK has failed to establish that the juvenile system has EITHER less rape OR more rehabilitation. "Q2.How is the mexican mafia more beneficial then 12 year old gang members?" I cannot make sense of this question. Neither are beneficial, therefore one is not more beneficial than the other. "Q3.If we do worry about the costs, but we promote more crime, how to we actually save money?" If it were true that this approach would promote crime, then we could weight the costs and benefits. It is up to the instigator to establish that the proposed approach reduces crime, or that mine would increase it; you cannot take that as assumed. That is a classical fallacy called "begging the question". Also, of course, there is a finite sum of money to be spent in the CJS and it should be spent on punishing felonies, the most serious crimes, and not providing expensive day care for teen gangsters. 4.What statistics do you show that 70 million Americans have the same moral standards as an adult. All adult Americans do NOT share the same moral framework. This was not argued, nor is it relevant. Reply RK: "The resolution speaks about charging juveniles with violent felonies as adults. I am saying that if I can prove one time where we won't, or treat them equally with the same punishment, which I have, then I win this debate." Not at all. The resolution speaks to the effectiveness of the CJS. The CJS is currently imperfect. The resolution is what we should do: we should do that which will result in a better CJS. Neither of us needs to establish a perfect CJS. This again is a false dichotomy - it's a continuum of better/worse, not a binary of perfect/fail. RK: " my opponent does not realize that they executed these juveniles before 2005. We may have done it before, but now we don't because it is immoral to the supreme court's eyes. After 2005 they cannot." We are not arguing what the Supreme Court has said, we are arguing what should be done. In my view, all capital punishment should be abolished, but that's not the subject of this debate. In respect to my fulsome response to his Argument 2 sub A, Rk says: "Oh sorry, but I gave a 9 year old cameron kocher killing some1 with a rifle. Not shop lifting. Therefore all arguments addressed are irrelavent" Again, this is a false dichotomy - even if the 9 year old with a rifle was not addressed, that does not mean ALL the arguments are invalid. Of course, the 9 year old with a rifle was addressed in three ways: 1) by pointing out that the resolution is related to youths 15-17, not children aged 9, and is irrelevant; 2) by pointing out that criminal conviction for felony would require mens rea, the guilty mind, and that accidental shooting would never qualify, regardless of age; and 3) by making a joke about Dick Cheney, who accidentally shot a man and was not charged. My response was complete and stands as-is. RK: "The outcome of juvenile is more beneficial than the outcome of prison." Again, this begs the question. RK needs to establish that a juvenile centre is better than jail, not just state it. Opposition Case Separation: The argument that only keeping rapists and murderers in jail ensures they will not harm innocent citizens is manifestly true. While true that crimes are committed in prisons, these are committed against other criminals; the CJS exists to protect law abiding Americans and punish criminals, not the other way around. Separation will not prevent all crime - that is yet another false dichotomy. Sufficiently mature: Cars are dangerous - deadly. We permit 16 year olds to drive them. Therefore, it is clear for this purpose that we think these youths are mature enough to understand the deadly consequences of their actions. Similarly, 16 year olds understand the deadly consequences of murder and the vile consequences of rape. RK again raises a false dichotomy of "mature" and "not mature"when it is a continuum of "more/less" maturity.18 year olds are not 100% mature, but are considered mature enough to be held responsible. The same reasoning exactly applies to 16 year olds. The false dichotomy would require RK to admit that 30year olds are not 100% mature and should receive special treatment like youths. That is nonsensical because the dichotomy is false, and RK has failed to respond to the proposition. Denunciation: RK tries to draw a spurious comparison between the "equality" of treating adults as adults vs adults as children or children as adults or children as children. The equality that he needs to focus on, however, is this one: Serious Crime = Serious punishment Criminals convicted of the most serious crimes, like rape and murder, are convicted felons and our society must denounce this antisocial activity through imprisonment. We already do, only in a much more expensive institution and for a much shorter period of time, so they can be quickly back on the streets with their gang training and confidence that they can commit more crimes without going to "real" jail. That must stop. Prevention: The fact is that my opponent has admitted that juvie is a training ground for young gangsters. There are two key differences between their training there and adult training in prison: 1) In juvie they learn that they will NEVER be fully punished for their crimes before age 18. They learn they are invulnerable. 2) In juvie they learn quickly and are back on the street. In real jail they can practice their skills on other felons and leave good Americans safe. And that is why I am proud to oppose this motion.