juveniles charged with a violent felony ought to be treated as adults in the USA

Thank you for accepting. A brief roadmap, I will state my case and move on to attack my opponentts. The format of my case is a normal case, counterplan, disadvantage of my opponent's plan to send juveniles to adult facilities. First: I would like to address the fact he says all of the juveniles are horrible murderers. The resolution says charged, not convicted, In the United States those who are charged are presumed innocent until proven guilty, since we cannot presume these juveniles are horrible murderers, this already renders all of his arguments about juveniles accepting responsiblity nontopical because a juvenile is "presumed innocent" in the timeframe. First: Bromide explains, "During the charged phase, a defendant is given two options, either pay bail to get out of jail or be incarcerated. However, Justice Policy concluded 82% of all juvenile offenders are below the poverty line and thus are unable to afford the expensive bail to release them, furthermore half of these juveniles come from abusive families who refuse to pay bail even if they had the money, which means during the charged phase a large amount of juveniles will be jailed. So this shows INCARCERATION happens during the charged phase, but not conviction. So we can debate about the incarceration during the timeframe of the resoltion, we simply cannot automatically say "Oh, that juvenile is a bad bad person." Now I talk about rape in adult prisons. How do I gain access to this if I say we only talk about the "charged phase?" Normal Case: LEgal Obligations I contend Different people have different obligations, and I contend that an individul must fully accpet the terms of the social contract before they can be tried to the fullest extent. So juveniles cannot be tried as adults because they have not fully entered into the "contract" that allows them to do so. If the government wants you to stop breaking laws, they must grant you something in return, similar to a contract. I contend tht the right to vote is denied to all labled "juveniles", and thus the government cannot treat juveniles the same as adults because they havent entered into that contract yet. THe right to vote is a safeguard against the government. It is a fundamental right of a democracy, and is one of the incentives to go to America.When someone embraces the right to vote, they freely consent to become part of that government, along with other smaller rights. So i say once juveniles get the other rights they are denied currently, they will have entered into the contract making them obligated to adhere to the governmental laws and face the full extent of the consequences, but only until then. So thus if juveniles are denied this right and other rights such as the right to drink and get married, I say they cannot be treated exactly equal to an adult because the government has not fulfilled their part of the bargain and cannot expect the same in return. Rothmyer explains, " LAws prhibit juveniles from possessing firearms, which are the number one murder weapons. Furthermore, rights and responsibilities of adults are not granted to juveniles. To treat a juveniles exactly like an adult would be hypocritical because Off case: CP THe United States should embrace federalism Currrently, I agree with my opponent. The states decide what is a juvenile. I say we should keep it this way, because it ought to be the state's responsiblity to decide what a juvenile is, not the federal government. Roytman explains, "If the federal government were to take away the right to decide what a juvenile is, this would be both unnecessary and detrimental to the state and federal relationship. The States will once again perceive the federal government to be untrustworthy or tyrannical and tus disrupting stability. Furthermore, regulating a definitive age on a juvenile would be bad economically becausew thew government would need to spend millions to remove the "juveniles" and certain states and transfer them to adult facilities. Disadvantage of transferring: Flaherty explains,"Michael G. Flaherty, a researcher with the University of Illinois surveyed the number of suicides in a thousand jails and juvenile detention centers. The study found that the suicide rate of juveniles in adult jails is 7.7 times higher than that of juvenile detention centers. In stark contrast, the survey also found that the juvenile institution suicide rate was much lower than that of the general population." Moreover, prison rape and assault are commonplace in mixed population jails. Justice Policy Institute 2 explains: "Five times as many youth held in adult prisons answered yes to the question "has anyone attempted to sexually attack or rape you?" than those held in juvenile institutions The study also found that children placed with adults were twice as likely to report being "beaten up" by staff: close to one in ten juveniles report being assaulted by staff. The juveniles in adult prison were also 50 percent more likely to report being attacked with a weapon." in contrast, Flaherty concludes that less than one percent of juveniles are raped within the juvenile justice system.Furthermore, 5o% of the victims are raped within the first 24 hours. This means that when we treat juveniles under the adult system, we actually treat them WORSE then adults, in fact, way worse. So even if you buy the fact juveniles have it easy right now, I'd say it's better to have it a little easy then to get raped. Flaherty explains the impact of rape. "...Rape leads to an aids epidemic as prison rape occurs frequently and can spread it within prisons. Furthermore, even when a prisoner is released he will transmit aids to nearby people or his spouse." Go to his arguments First: Juveniles know consequences of actions and if they are gith or wrong. So are you telling me a six year old is going to have as much moral intuition as an elder. And would you give a six year old the death penalty?Furthermore, not everybody's opinion of right or wrong is the same. For example,The hitler regime clearly thought killing jews was morally acceptable but I'm sure none of us think so. I say even if you buy juveniles know right from wrong, they are still undeniably less experienced and more reckless so thus should be treated differently. Even if they are just as bad as adults, they are not worse, thus even if you buy they ought to be treated equally, they are not in adult prisons, because they subjected to rape by adult inmates. "Secondly, I'm going to consider the method of how a child obtained his/her weapon. Legally, a person under the age of eighteen can not purchase a firearm, a sword, dagger or even a large knife without a guardian's consent. Carrying gravity knives, daggers and switchblades is an illegal act in Canada and most States (though possession is not necessarily illegal, and some States do permit unconcealed butterfly knives). " You can most defintely turn this argument. This is exaclty what I am talking about, juveniles do NOT have the right to possess firearms, while adults do and thus expected to bear the consequences of possessing one. If juveniles are so inferior they can't even buy a weapon or knife to kill someone with or commit a violent felony, then they most certainly cannot be expected to be held to the same responsibility as an adult. "If a 180 pound teenager of about sixteen or seventeen were to flick a switchblade and assume an offensive combat stance with intent to maim you, would you appreciate that they be sent to juvenile court and sentenced lightly in proportion to the adult sentence? I think not!" I'm just going to say right here, do whatever you want with them after conviction. If your moral views say to place a juvenile into a adult program where they are sure to get raped, then that's fine if that coincides with your idea of justice,however the resolution says charge.