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

As an overview, I concede that Utilitarianism measures what the impacts and consequences are to any action to determine whether it is good or bad. However, that doesn't mean the Chamberline analysis goes away. In fact, you can extend it - it went clean dropped by my opponent. It quite clearly tells you that if we try juveniles as aduts then more juveniles will be deterred from committing crimes since adult court is more public than juvenile court. Further, prefer it to all of my oppnents' empirical evidence for a few reasons. First, analytical evidence applies in every case that fits the given premises whereas empirical evidence cannot. A study can't test everyone, and different studies produce different results at times. However, you can logically know that juveniles would be deterred by public punishment, especially since my opponent fails to provide a counter-reason. Second, a hypothetical experiment is more isolated then a real one since it only tests one variable. Real - world studies suffer from many flaws, biases, or lack of controlled variables, and while the occurrence of these can be reduced they can never be competely eliminated. Third, it outweighs everything on strength of link. The link between public punishment in adult court and deterrence was uncontested by the negative debater, so in debate we assume that the impact coming off of it is true. This extension of Chamberline has two impacts. First, it means I'm getting significant offense in the round, especially since it was dropped. And second, it means that even if he partially responds to the Chamberline evidence, if he doesn't provide any reason why you should vote for him in the round you will be voting for me since my evidence clearly states that deterrence will likely occur. Let's go to my opponents' NC where he tries to respond to the Levitt Study contained in the Oliver evidence. His first point about correlation not implying causation actually supports my case. During the period in which Levitt conducted his study, nationwide crime rates actually went up, not down. Therefore, it bolsters the unique strength of the threat of being punished in adult courts as a deterrent. The idea that deterrence doesn't work because violent felonies are irrational is just false for two reasons. First, juveniles are empirically capable of being deterred, as Christine Chamberline explains, This argument fails, however, because in many cases, juveniles know that the crime they have committed is wrongful and are thuscapable of being deterred. For example, in 1989, nine-year-old Cameron Kocher used a rifle to shoot and kill seven-year-old Jessica Carr. Even at age nine, however, Cameron knew that his actions were wrong because he tried to hide the spent cartridge. Second, all offenders must think about the consequences when they commit violent crimes. That's why they do it in the first place - to make themselves happy. If we provide a great punishment that outweighs that pleasure then it makes sense they will refrain from comitting such crimes. Third, the Oliver evidence takes this out - it says juvenile are successfully deterred since "many of the youth interviewed made a conscious decision to stop engaging in criminal behavior once they turned 16, specifically because the laws on the books treated criminal offenders as adults starting at the age of 16." - My opponent didn't respond to this in the last speech so it's a clear reason to take out his response. The third point that he makes provides another study contesting the claims of the Levitt study contained in my Oliver evidence - however, prefer mine for a few reasons. First, it's more recent - Levitt published his study 10 years later then the authors my opponent cited, so conditions in my study are more accurate and relevant to the status quo. Second, his evidence states " similar declines in the arrest rates for 16- to 19-year-olds from New York and for 13- to 15-year-olds from Philadelphia were seen" and this is logically consistent with being more than just false causation. That's what the first Chamberline evidence tells you - the publicized punishment from trying these violent juveniles as adults and giving them the proper punishment deterred other juveniles and juveniles in nearby states, proving that it works. Therefore extend my Oliver evidence, which says that trying juveniles as adults causes juveniles to be less likely to become involved in criminal behavior based on two studies - one by Glassner that proves juveniles can be consciously deterred and one by Levitt that uses crime rates to measure the effect of deterrence on society. Next, his Wilson evidence that talks about recidivism is inherently flawed. First, this is a result of the transfer process in the status quo. The really violent offenders right now go to the adult court and the not-so violent ones go to the juvenile court based on what the prosecutor thinks and based on the crime the juvenile is charged for. Differences in recidivism rates are based on the fact that the juvenile court contains less-violent offenders. Second, this makes no sense. For the violent crimes these offenders are being sentenced to life in some cases - how can they have the opportunity to commit crimes again? The evidence doesn't say. Third, Barry Feld proves why this isn't true since juvenile court rehabilitation empirically fails. He explains, Evaluations of the effectiveness of juvenile court intervention on recidivism rates counsel skepticism about the availability of programs that consistently or systematically rehabilitate juvenile offenders. The inability to demonstrate significant treatment effects may reflect either methodological flaws, poorly implemented programs, or, in fact, the absence of effective methods of treatment. Moreover, even if some model programs do "work" for some offenders under some conditions, fiscal constraints, budget deficits, and competition from other interest groups make it unlikely that states will provide universally such treatment services for ordinary delinquents. In the face of unproven efficacy and inadequate resources, the possibility of an effective rehabilitation program constitutes an insufficient justification to confine young offenders "for their own good" while providing them with fewer procedural safeguards than those afforded adults charged, convicted, and confined for crimes. Fourth, even if what he explains is true, it's not inherent in the adult system. If we could reduce institutional misconduct, we could reduce recidivism even while trying juveniles as adults. Chad Trulson explains, Based on data from juvenile correctional systems, this research found limited support for institutional misconduct as a determinant of recidivism. Of all measures of misconduct, only the rate of total misconduct infractions was related to postrelease rearrest, and this effect was generally small and found only in the rearrest frequency model, not the dichotomous rearrest model. Fifth, he provides no specifics for the research on how it was conducted nor why his Wilson evidence is true. What studies cite a 50% recidivism rate? What is the reason for this rate? We don't know, since my opponent never clarifies this. That's enough to not vote for him on this evidence right there since we don't know what he's saying. Lastly , even if you accept what my opponent saying as true, it still doesn't matter very much in this debate. The juvenile system may cause offenders to recidivate 50% less than those in adult court, but how often do those in adult court recidivate? There's no clear answer. That's why you can't look to the recidivism rate, and must look to the crime rate instead. There, i'm clearly winning due to my clean extensions of the Oliver and Chamberline evidence. There's no way he can win this debate since the only justifications you could have for voting for him link to flawed statistics.