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

1. Re: Juveniles need to be tried in adult courts to uphold the basic forms of justice. Sub Point A Pro provides a quote from Aristotle which she interprets to support the resolution. She writes, "Equals should be treated equally and un-equals unequally." Ironically, I see this perspective as helping to negate the resolution. In Pro's example, if a 14 year old commits murder and a 20 year old commits murder, the only factor she deems relevant pertaining to the deaths are the different locations they took place at. She suggests no characteristics about the assailant matter. However, that is simply not the way our criminal justice system operates. For example, suppose a mentally handicapped person murdered someone. In that case, such an act might even be considered an accident or tragic mistake. As such, we can see that there are qualities pertaining to the assailant that we do keep in mind when determining how to best achieve justice. Moreover Pro's standards negate her very own point. For instance she specified that juveniles pertained to individuals between the ages of 13 and 18. However, why isn't the standard extended to include toddlers or someone aged 5? Quite obviously Pro recognizes a profound distinction in the cognitive abilities of a toddler and that of an adult or even teenager. So, Pro must agree that maturity and rational thinking must be present in order to hold an individual accountable to a particular degree. Because such factors can typically be represented or gauged by age, it makes sense to have a distinction between different groups of people. As such, Pro has the burden of proving that a 13 year old has the same rational capabilities as adult. In this debate, I will prove otherwise as well as establish that justice can be served even without upholding the resolution. Sub Point B Pro argues that a juvenile has a better opportunity for a fair trial if they are tried in criminal as opposed to juvenile court, primarily because they would then have the right to a trial by jury as opposed to a trial determined by one judge. However, one need only look at the potential penalties for a juvenile being charged with a violent crime as an adult to see why the benefits of being tried as a juvenile are clearly superior to the contrary. Because the penalties for an adult would be inarguably more severe, it would probably be in the best interest of the defendant to take their chance with one judge. Moreover, a juvenile has every right to appeal their case regardless of how it is reconciled just as an adult does. Finally on this point, in the case of a severe violent crime (like murder) with subsantial penalties, the defense is going to prepare a case with utmost care and concen. In other words Pro tries to make it sound as if the juvenile defense attorneys are lacking or incompetent, when that is simply not the case and especially not in a high profile case. Sub Point C This completely confuses me. Pro writes, and I quote, "Youth who are subjected to the more punitive adult court system showed higher rates of recidivism and reoffended more quickly than those youth components that have gone through rehabilitative centers within the criminal justice system." It seems that here my opponent has just offered a statistic in my favor. If I am reading this correctly, it proves that minors going through the rehabilitative centers within the juvenile system has had a more positive effect than subjecting minors to the criminal justice system. 2. Re: Juveniles know right from wrong. Pro's second conetention posits that juveniles fully understand what they are doing; therefore, should be punished accordingly. However my opponent admits that science proves there are distinct differences between a juvenile and adult brain. A study done by the National Institute of Health found that the region of the brain that inhibits risky behavior does not fully form until age 25. This is the final stage of brain development [1]. While that is not to say people cannot be held accountable for their actions until that age, it logically follows that people at different ages have a different capacity to understand different things. A three year old does not understand murder the way a thirteen year old does for example, and still a twenty three year old understands murder at an even more complex level. One's capacity to understand their actions absolutely plays a role in the criminal justice system. Visiting a previous example, if a mentally handicapped person walked out of a store holding a piece of store property, people aren't going to assume it was intentional theft and thus may not seek to punish him the way they would an intentional offender. Similarly, people who commit crimes accidentally are not held to the same standard as those who intentionally inflicted harm. Likewise, children who do not or can not grapple with the severity of their crime should not be held to the same standard as a competent, more developed adult. That is not to say the child should not be punished at all; they should simply be given a fair assessment by acknowledging their inferior reasoning abilities. Note that the resolution does not call for juveniles to be tried as adults in ALL crimes; only violent ones. This simply does not follow. If it is accepted that juveniles should be tried separately from adults in *some* cases because they are not up to being held to the same standards as adults, then this mentality applies to crimes of ALL capacity. If you're saying juveniles should be more severely punished in only specific cases, then it's essentially leading by emotion and not logic. At that point it becomes not about justice but revenge. Therefore, Pro's value of justice is being violated. There are rapid and dramatic changes in individuals' physical, intellectual, emotional, and social capabilities during their pre-teen to adult years. If there is a period in the life span during which one might choose to draw a line between incompetent and competent individuals, this is it [2]. Additionally, researchers for the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice found that teenagers are less blameworthy than adults, and that their capacities change significantly over the course of adolescence [3]. Conclusion We punish criminals for two reasons: to protect society, and to achieve some sort of justice (or fairness). So why should we try juveniles as adults? Regarding the protection of society, young offenders will still be kept off the streets in juvenile detention centers, so there is no safety issue. In terms of achieving justice, the idea is to hold the assailant responsible for his or her actions if it is deemed the offender intentionally inflicted harm upon another, or violated their rights in some capacity. Juveniles do not have the same mental faculties as adults. If they did, the State would bestow upon them the same rights and responsibilities as adults, such as being able to buy alcohol, vote, etc. However clearly the State does not see them as being mature enough to be recognized as adults in most instances, so it cannot be rational to suggest that they are held to the same standard of maturity and responsibility as adults. That is a hypocritical and dangerous implementation of subjective reasoning. Furthermore, upholding the resolution significanty undermines the possibility for young people to be rehabilitated. Considering juveniles have demonstrated a significantly higher capacity to change than adults, it once again makes sense to hold them to different standards. Thank you. [1] http://www.ehow.com... [2] http://findarticles.com... [3] http://articles.cnn.com...