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

Even with all the confusion. Hopefully we both become more knowledgeable about the topic. I will first answer his questions, defend my case, attack his, "Do you think it is more important to focus on the accused felon than on protecting law-abiding Americans? " No. But we still must focus on the accused felon if they are under the age of adulthood. "Do you think 15 and 16 year olds don't understand the seriousness of crimes like rape and murder? " It would be absurd and illogical to say that all 15 and 16 year olds understand the seriousness of crimes. To an extent some do. They should be punished. "Do you think we should wait until brain maturity at 35 or 40 before using prisons? " No. We don't do that now. But I am stating that even in adulthood maturity hasnt been funny reached. Also, to say every 16-18 yr old has the brain of an adult wouldn't make sense. Right after their 16th birthday, do they really become an adult? At 12:00 should they be considered an adult? "What about people who never each full maturity - should they never be held responsible? " Moral standards do increase. They should be held accountable for crimes at an extent. I give the examples in my case. Refer back to them "Do you admit youth detention centres are training grounds for young gangsters? " Yes, but so are prisons. Prisons vs youth detention. Mexican Mafia vs. 3rd rate crack dealer. Now to the attacks made on my case. "RK 'observes' that "If [he] can prove one time when juveniles will not be treated as adults then [he] wins this debate. " The resolution specifically refers to the Criminal Justice System ("CJS"). Therefore, the question is whether adopting the resolution would make the CJS better or worse. My friend as 'observed' a standard of perfection that is unreasonable: we are looking for a better system, not a perfect one. " 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. "My friend's first contention is a red herring. He admits that there "juvenile death penalty is not prohibited" under international treaty but suggests that many states would look down on the US for executing youths. He ignores the fact that several states already execute youths:" My opponent gives a legitimate source for his attack but 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. After 2005, we simply cannot serve justice as a whole. "He also fails again to demonstrate that this would reflect a "real change": most developed countries (including closest neighbours and largest trading partners Canad and Mexico) already look down on states having capital punishment. the proposer can only frighten us that they will look down a little more. . http://en.wikipedia.org...; This is for the real change statement. Real change? Imagine 3 million 16 year olds being executed. What society would actually accept that as of now? Why do you really think that we ruled it being immoral? Moving on. "His second contention attempts to raise our emotions by conjuring the 10-year-old boy who gets caught stealing, but shoplifting is not a felony offence and therefore not captured by the resolution! Similarly, criminal conviction requires mens rea, the guilty mind, and the accidental" Oh sorry, but I gave a 9 year old cameron kocher killing some1 with a rifle. Not shop lifting. Therfore all arguments addressed are irrelavent. You must extent my CONTENTION 2 Sub Point A throughout the round. . http://articles.cnn.com... "He cites medical evidence that "the mind continues to change shape as people reach their 30s and up to their late 40s. " But surely he is not suggesting that thirty-year olds be treated as insufficiently developed for criminal responsibility! Again, this is a false dichotomy. The question from the cognitive perspective is whether they are sufficiently developed to have criminal intent and responsibility, not "fully" developed by some magic standard. " Because 30 year olds know whether or not to kill. By that age, unless of retardation, he must be put in jail. Juveniles are under 30. What evidence do you have that 70 million juveniles should be held accountable for there felonies? "Sub-point B is little more than a tautology. He states, without any supporting evidence, that because the goal of youth detention centres is rehabilitation, they are in fact better at achieving it, once again mistakenly conflating goals and outcomes, and mistakenly focusing on the convicted felon instead of the safety of law-abiding Americans. " The outcome of juvenile is more beneficial than the outcome of prison. "Separation: Incarceration is the only certain way to prevent those convicted of serious crimes like rape and murder from harming others. The protection of law-abiding Americans is paramount. " Harmning others? That term is used very loosely. Flaws with Harming others 1. They can harm others in prison. 2. These juveniles can be easily influenced by other gangsters or previous felons 3. We will prevent it all? Since when? 4. What evidence do you have with that. "Mature Enough for Criminal Intent: 16 year olds can drive cars, deadly hunks of metal roaring down highways at 60 mph. They can have and consent to sexual relations. While they're admittedly not 100% mature, they will not be 100% mature until they are 40! They are mature enough to recognize the most serious criminal acts are wrongful, and not commit them. 16 year olds understand rape and murder. " What evidence do you have that they are mature? Or at least all 16 year olds. Well if they are matue to recognize serious crimes, why cant they drink? Why cant they get government jobs? Because they are not adults? Then why treat them like that in the criminal justice system? "Denunciation: The focus on youth's immaturity promotes irresponsibility. The most serious crimes need to be denounced by serious punishment: incarceration for a year or more. " Cross apply my equality argument which basically states that you aren't treating them like adults. They are still kids when being charged if you do this for "a year or more". You aren't treating these "adults" as "adults" "Prevention: Gangs actually recruit youth into lives of crime because they know they are note exposed to the same sentencing. According to the National Crime Prevention Council, schools are the #1 choice to recruit. If we really want to reduce youth criminality, we must reduce this inappropriate social incentive to commit crimes prior to age 18. " What is juvenile filled with? Gangs? What is prison filled with? Gang NATIONS! . What makes you think they will be actually more beneficial. On top of that, they will be exposed to more gang like activities, which promotes more gang like crimes. In the end by sending them to prison you are actually WORSENING the United States. There are roughly 2 million people currently housed in prisons in the United States today. A good majority of those individuals belong or have belonged to a gang, whether it was on the street or while confined. In the following pages I am going to discuss prison gangs. The subject is a broad one and I will not attempt to cover all the material available. I will instead provide a brief overview of the major prison gangs that operate in the U. S. prison system. . http://www.associatedcontent.com... Cost argument-With more crime we spend more. Youth facility-we still work on rehabilitation.