In the united states, juveniles charged with a violent felony ought to be treated as adults

I will start with attacking my opponents case and then defending mine. First: Extend jury trials he doesn't make a single attack against this, and I stated clearly the benefits of a jury trial to juveniles and to the welfare of democracy in general. Go to all of his arguments about human worth, they all presume that the punishment has occured, whereas I argue this is not true. In the resolution it says "Juveniles charged" not convicted, and since we can't presume the guilt of a juvenile we cannot talk about how the punishment affects them because to do so would imply they are guilty. So thus his arguments about adultpunishment being so vile become nontopical, this essentially drops his entire case. He tries to answer this back by saying "obs. The deference in trying someone as an adult or a chlid is the punishment for their crime, therefore we must look to the punishment of their crime as a detirmining factor." This is absolutely false. The punishment is not the only different part, one main thing is that juveniles simply appear in front of a judg with no jury in juvenile courts in the TRIAL PHASE. "At the age of 13, he strangled a 4 year old, slammed two large rocks on his head, and then proceeded to shove a stick up his rectum. any sane human would never do such a terrible thing nine years to life in prison will not help his sanity more than a psychologist?" Ok, first why is this specific to juveniles? An adult could do this as while. Furthermore, just because someone does something bad doesn't mean they are automatically insane or less culpable. For example, if I stole something or killed someone, could i just say, "Oh i was less culpable or insane because noone in there right mind wouldn't do such a thing?" I say juveniles still have the moral intuition, that is why most juveniles do not commit felonies. In fct, the percentage of juvenile violent felonies is way lower than that of adults, so it could suggest juveniles possess something, hether it be fear of retaliation or some other factor that actually deters them. "Scientific studies have determined that the human brain undergoes continuous development up to the age of about twenty-one. "Because the brains of juveniles, particularly the frontal lobes, are not fully developed, youths lack the ability to perform critical adult functions, such as plan, anticipate consequences, and control impulses," states Adam Ortiz, a policy fellow with the American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center" OK, first of all, I will say there is no brightline for culpability because one does not automatically turn into an adult at the age of 18 or 21. Second, once again with the charged not convicted observation at the top of my case that restricts punishment, he completgely ignores this. I am debating about the TRIAL ASPECT hence jury trials thus i am being topical whereas he is simply trying to assume punishment is being discussed in the topic, I say, do whatever you want with a juvenile after conviction, but don't deny them a jury trial which you are doing in the negative world. C3:"Punishment doesn't work, it just makes things worse." Once again we are not discussing punishment, but even if you don't buy that, I say punishment does not define the uniqueness of the adut system, the adult system is famous for rehabilitation that juvenile facilities lack, mainly victim reconciliation programs anmd restorative justice which focuses on repairing relationships with the victim instead of the offender's own needs. c4: Basically the same as c2, just talking about how bad juveniles get it, you can crossapply observation one and all attacks on contention 2. "my opponets criterion is state of exception. we cannot look to this criterion because it is a contradiction in itself. the fact that a government violates a persons rights dosent uphold saftey in itself. another reason that we cannot look to state of exception is that his value and criterion contradict. if we allow the government to violate a humans rights we are not protecting their worth. this value and criterion cannot work togeather, so we cannot look to them as frame work." First of all they do link. I am making the argument that the state of exception is essentially a pathways to justify massive dehumanization. Under the pretense of trying to ensure the public's safety, the government is able to justify large scale atrocities such as dehumanization to benefit their own political interests, we achieve human worth by preventing this. contention: Juries lead to a state of exception. We can not look toward a state of exception. in my opponets Agamben card he uses hitler as a state of exception, and the problem with this is that we shouldnt model our government after hitler. we all know how cruel hitler was, sending jews to concentration camps and killing millions of people, and we cannot follow his example. instead we should value human worth and allow juevaniles to be tried as just what they are. Children. juries are a good thing, but we can allow juries to try children as children. He makes a bunch of "attacks" against the state of exception, but never attacks the benefits of a jury trial, which I implicitly state, so you can extend those. Furthermore, he says hitler's government was bad. Well, obviously. I am saying if the government links into the state of exception they will be stooping to the level of Hitler because hitler used the same state of exception to justify killing jews. In conclusion, he is not achieving human worth in so far as he is not preventing the permanent state of exception thus allowing the government to violate human worth during the charged phase.