Resolved: US Supreme Court ought favor sentences of life without parole for adolescents under 18.

Contention 1: The mental development of juveniles makes such a sentence unjust. This is FALSE. Would a 17 year-old's mind be so much different than an 18 year old's that they wouldn't be able to know logical common sense? A violent home invasion in my mind, as a 16 year old, is obviously not something that's okay to do. Ask anyone you know that's a teenager, when asked they will say it is wrong. We've been taught through books, through adults, through school, through life experiences, that some things are right, and others are wrong. From this initial understanding, we would be expected to realize that being violent and breaking into someone's house is clearly not a good idea. Another case is the "13-year-old rapist," as a CNN article dated November 09, 2009 states. A rapist is a rapist. If you are being told to stop, and that this isn't right, and that there's no way on Earth this is moral, why would you continue doing the action? Even at age 13, the mind is developed enough to know that when you are told to stop, you should stop, and what you are doing is wrong.1a: Adolescents are less capable of making rational decisions. Con would like us to believe that teenagers are more influenced by their surrounding. This point will be immediately thrown out because 18 year olds, and 19 year-olds are also teenagers. Because of the vagueness of this description, we could easily argue that the Con position during this debate is already defaulted a loss because of the inability to hold up this point. There is no excuse whether it be because of genetics or what, jail is a place where you, if you have not previously known, learn from your mistake. Life in jail is also an example for others. If you rape someone, and rape is an extremely high offense, as is a violent home invasion, and murder. If there are less examples of this behavior and where it leads someone, it will just happen more often. Letting these sentences go will initially spark more and more of this behavior. If a 17 year old, only a month away from 18 can rape a woman/man and get away with it, other 17 year olds and younger will take advantage of the lack of long-term punishment. The act of putting juveniles in jail is a teaching opportunity for the states. The rest of this argument is a quote about the intelligence of juveniles. Unless Con can explain this more in his own words, it will not be answered, as I have answered the sub-point itself.1b: Rehabilitation is possible for juvenile offenders. This entire sub-point is a section from the article that Pro links to. I will argue briefly, but encourage the voters to drop this point as it is not Pros, but an article's. Rehabilitation does not always work! We cannot promise that these juveniles will be completely rehabilitated at the end, and a life-sentence is the only way to ensure that they will not commit the same crime again. "A government programme that is supposed to help rehabilitate the worst youth offenders should be scrapped as nine out of 10 people who go on it reoffend. " claims an article by The Guardian dated August 24, 2009. Because the rate of fully rehabilitated juveniles is so low, this is not a logical point.1c: The adult justice system causes harms to juveniles. Considering we are talking about life-sentences specifically, it is not relevant to be debating adult jails as vaguely as Pro is. Considering these juveniles are serving their entire lives in prison, suicide is not a matter of discussion. If they will die in jail, they will die in jail, whether it be at their own hands, or by natural causes. This just goes as another example to other possible offenders. If juveniles hate it that much that they would kill themselves, it is clearly an example to others that it isn't a good idea to give anyone the idea of sending you to jail, thus lowering crime rates. Contention 2: There is an imbalance in rights and responsibilities for juveniles. Being tried as an adult after committing a high crime is not the only factor that would make an inequality between adults and juveniles noticeable. There is also the fact that we do not have the right to drink alcohol or smoke or vote, as a "right" is only considered in the sense of a human right. And human rights are provided to all humans at all ages, not just at certain age limits. No rights are being infringed upon, therefore this inequality that Con claims is not truly there. Besides, just by trying juveniles as adults is not the only way to express the inequality. Preventing this WILL NOT SOLVE for this issue. My Case:Contention 1: Life for juveniles can easily be considered an example for other juveniles. You can see my arguments on this throughout my rebuttals, but to sum it up: other juveniles will stay as far away from these crimes if they see people their age or younger in jail for it (for life).