Resolved: In the US, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adult criminals.

Road map: I will first attack my opponent's case than move on to rebuild my own My opponent states "In order for our society to truly achieve its best, we need the use of these juveniles in the future." we need juveniles, correct but it would be best not to have these juveniles who commit violent crimes, he is statement is saying that these juveniles are the only juveniles, however normal juveniles would be better for the future of America rather then sending the violent juveniles back on the streets to re-commit crime. In my opponent's entire case, he says how we should allow them to be an active member of society. But let's be real, people who caused serious harm or death to a person forfeited their right to be a member of society. Let me also add that once someone goes to prison, they are not a full member of society, prisoners will never be able to vote after their time is up in prison, the government agrees with me saying they don't deserve full benefits of society. My opponent's case is saying that the welfare of society is achieved through putting violent juveniles back on the streets. The juvenile system will have a smaller sentence, we cannot count on maybe two years of rehabilitation to so call "fix" kids who killed someone, and it will not work. This jeopardizes society's safety not achieving his value. There is nothing about rehabilitating a violent juvenile that will provide societal welfare. in my opponents first contention, he acts like rehabilitation programs will completely stop the juvenile from getting re- arrested, however it will not there is still recidivism, Jane Wilson of Stanford university said there is around a 75 percent recidivism rate in the juvenile justice system. I know he had a quote showing that there is no national recidivism rates however to get the point across that there is a significant amount of recidivism and that rehabilitation cannot always work, any accounts of recidivism will support that. On my opponents second contention he said I am "promoting child abuse" by saying that they belong in the jails hover my opponent would be promoting violent crime by saying they should get off easy. My opponent states that I am saying that we should allow these juveniles to be beaten don't let him fool you, these aren't innocent kids, these are people threatening their peer's lives, they did commit a violent crime after all. The juveniles would be around a bad group of people and likely to get beat in a juvenile court as well. also, might I add that violent criminals getting beat will not harm societal welfare, it will harm the welfare of a violent criminal who has already committed a violent crime in absolutely no way will society be affected. To attack his third point, my opponent states that juveniles may have grown up me a home where morality is not present, how could this be so? Nobody could have lived their life with ought knowing hurting someone is wrong. If not at home they could learn it through school, movies, TV and other outlets into society. If such an instance where a chilled has not been exposed to society, there will be discrepancies in court and they will not receive as harsh as a punishment. also let me bring up the research on babies by Paul bloom professor of psychology at the infant cognation center there were puppet shows and the toddlers were asked to chose their favorite character, the majority of babies always chose the character that did the morally right thing. If morality is present in toddlers, than it is present in juveniles. He then says that my statistic on brain science was open ended. however he only attacked the first part, let me re- quote the second part "We have too little detail about how the human brain is organized for computer models of the brain to be of great use at this stage." this quote is showing how we have little detail on the way the brain works, sure the doctors may be smart, however there is still not enough known to state that juveniles lack all decision making parts of the brain. on to rebuild my case first, he attacks my value criterion of deterrence by bringing up the deterrence theory and saying juveniles aren't rational desicion makers, however I have disproved his entire contention of how the juveniles cant make decisions. also deterrence is apparent in society. what keeps the juveniles from committing crimes, obviously it benefits them, they kill someone they hate makes them satisfied, steeling something is like receiving something free, however what stops them from all committing this crime, according to his case, my opponent would say nothing, but the only thing possible that could stop them is deterrence because it is apparent that not every juvenile has committed a violent crime. also I will add that my opponent never attacks the other part of my value criterion which is incapacitation, it stands untouched. I don't know why, to clarify my value criterion incapacitation means to keep violent juveniles in jail or incapacitated away from society to protect against feuter crime. incapacitation is a big part of my case, in order to attack my case, my opponent needed to attack that. to refute my first contention, my opponent tries to say that in society degree of crime is not equivalent to the punishment because someone charged with murder is different than someone with manslaughter. however that is not what I am talking about if the juvenile committed murder, they ought to be treated like they did. if a juvenile commits manslaughter they ought to be treated like they did. he brings up their lack of culpability, I already disproved his point on underdeveloped so he cannot use that, also they consciously committed the crime, because they are a juvenile does not make a crime like murder an accident. in my second contention, my opponent states that I have not proved how the juvenile courts are ineffective. allow me to restate it (Scott and Steinberg, law professors and Psychology professor say the juvenile court system has failed to deal with today's savvy young criminals who use guns to commit serious crimes. Criminal Justice Champion and Mays, Professors at California State University said that the juvenile justice system does not have the facilities and programs to treat serious offenders, and that the youngster's behavior warrants harsher treatment that is not available in the juvenile justice system. Elrod and Ryder professors of criminal justice from Eastern Kentucky University also said something else similar that "criminal courts are better equipped to deal with chronic, serious, and Violent Judicial offenders.") that is evidence showing how violent juveniles are more effectively treated in the adult court is it not? I acknowledge the quote discrediting a national scale of recidivism but I did not see him show how there is a higher recidivism rate in the adult court anywhere, I offered two studies showing high recidivism in the juvenile courts. I will ask my opponent to provide anything that shows the adult court with higher recidivism. he asked for a source "Preston Elrod & R. Scott Ryder, Professor of Criminal Justice-Eastern Kentucky University" I have already proved the effectiveness of deterrence so I do not find in necessary to repeat in my defense of my third contention.