Juveniles should be tried and treated as adults

When I was growing up, a kid at a local high school planned and executed the murder of his second language teacher with a knife, in front of all the students in his class. It was calculated, cold and malicious. The teacher had, by all accounts, done absolutely nothing to provoke him. The kid was of sound mind, but clearly, limited conscience. He showed little remorse, though he accepted responsibility. If he were an adult, he would be in prison today. Instead, he's free.

I stand for a society that does not tolerate serious crime, no matter who commits it. Whether I'm robbed by somebody who's 17 or 19 makes no material difference; in the end, I am robbed, and there is the same social harm that needs to be corrected. In this debate, I will begin with three main reasons why we should treat juveniles the same as adults.

Juvenile - A person below the age of majority

Trials - a formal examination of evidence by a judge, typically before a jury, to decide guilt in a case of criminal or civil proceedings.

Treated As Adults - Given the same sentences as adults would be

For the benefit of providing a model, none of my arguments apply to homicides, sexual assaults, extortion, and abduction

1. Impacts on the future generation:

According to the BBC, nowadays 43% of the sentences last more than 4 years. When longer prison sentences make reintegration difficult for adults, how would a child who has lesser mental tolerance and strength cope? There is a high possibility of children developing 'Post Incarceration Syndrome.' According to an exploratory paper published in February 2018, in all likeliness, even a shorter prison sentence can increase impulsivity and decrease attention control. With these traits in children who served incarceration, it will be impossible to create a strong, beneficial society. Children, when growing as adults will lose their entire life because of the sub traits such as introversion, deteriorated ambition and orderliness. Over the course of the years, 70% of the adults that should be contributing to the society as human resources will be mentally unhealthy, dangerous and turn out to be burdens. Released prisoners may also be less capable of living a lawful life than they were prior to their imprisonment

2. Vulnerability

a)The core reason, why children are not tried and treated as adults is because their thinking is very limited. Children are very vulnerable and could have been manipulated by other factors to commit the crime or have committed the crime without thinking about the consequences because of immaturity and adrenaline pump.

b) Prisons have long been described as breeding grounds for crime. I accept that most people change for the better. But there are a lot of criminals who plan crimes to execute it themselves after their sentence, in their sentence, or through someone else who is going to be released. It will be very easy to manipulate children into fulfilling their wishes because of their young age and vulnerability. These incidents will not only change the juvenile's character for the worse serving as a bad example but will also put them through further trouble. 

This is however not the case with adults who are grown, have experienced, and can think clearly without being manipulated.

3.The right way 

Trying and treating juveniles as adults also means that growing children's mindsets will be changed. Yes, of course, they'd be more disciplined. Not because they want to or they feel they should but because they are scared and are forced to. In that short run, this may seem like the perfect way to reduce juvenile crimes but in the long run, trying and treating children as adults will only create rebels.

Children, being the growing society deserve to be taught in a healthy way rather than be punished in a stringent daunting environment.

Bullies don't deserve to be bullied. Juveniles who gave into peer pressure deserve a chance to correct themselves. Manipulated children deserve a chance to heal.

Juveniles should never be tried and treated as adults because they are juveniles who are still learning to live not adults who commit crimes knowingly

Let me explain how a debate works, in case any judges are unclear. It is not for my opponent to define the topic or determine the model. The burden of proof is on the person bringing the claim. As the person affirming the topic, initiating the debate and changing the status quo, the burden of proof undoubtedly rests with me. This means I have to make arguments to try to convince you, otherwise I lose by default. However, if my arguments stand at the end of the debate, that also means I win. My opponent has made this very hard for themselves. First, they must defeat the case I have already put forward. To this point, my opponent has not rebutted my case at all, and this lack of engagement should be noted in the judging. This is especially the case since my opponent does not have the burden of proof, and therefore their case actually needs to respond to mine. Second, my opponent is also trying to convince you of a completely different model. That's fine, but I intend to rebut his arguments in this round. Third, my opponent is also trying to convince you that their own case does not always apply (see the "model" at the very start of their argument). This means they need to justify why their model should sometimes apply, and sometimes not. They are yet to make a start on this. My opponent needs to do all three of these things successfully if they intend to win this debate. All I need to do to win is keep defending the case I put forward in round one. However, for the purpose of entertainment, I will attack my opponent's constructive case anyway. Alternatively, they can drop this line and focus on the case I have put forward.

My opponent's argument here is that children in prison may struggle to reintegrate to society once they grow up. It is worth remembering that these are the worst of all the offenders. Nobody is suggesting throwing kids in jail for littering; these are kids who have committed serious, normally repeat crimes. The kids were found to be guilty, not just of doing the wrong thing, but having malicious intent behind it. Even if this were not the case under the status quo, the positive impacts on the justice system of my model would surely bring about this end, as noted by my point in round one about the effects on justice. Even with the arbitrary limits to what crimes may fall into this resolution as proposed by my opponent, it is clear that the number of people we are talking about here is slim, and the benefit to society (as I outlined in my social impacts point) is vast.

To extend the argument, consider that outside of prison these troubled kids continue to be in association with criminal elements, they continue to be in positions where they may endanger themselves and others. They're not monitored and, very often, are not in a social setting where they are able to get help. Some will have mental health issues and limited money to deal with them. Some come from families that are broken and dysfunctional to the point that these young people have turned to crime as an escape. Prison may very well be the best thing for them, because there they are monitored, there they are secured, and there they are able to be helped. Once their term is over, not only will they reap the benefits of this help, which will undoubtedly be much greater than any short-term adjustment shocks while reintegrating - they also gain help from specialist prison staff who work for reintegration, finding the young people jobs, rentals, ways to get a vehicle etc. Juveniles who are especially troubled often have far greater opportunities in prison than out of it. In fact my opponent later accepts in their case that most people "change for the better" in prisons.

The 70% statistic my opponent cites is just evidence that the current system is a failure. We need to take youth crime seriously. And let's not delude ourselves that none of those people would have been criminals had they not gone to jail. It wasn't that prison made them criminals, but they were put into prison because they were already criminals. If we only had tougher sentences for kids, this figure would reduce pretty quick.

It is true that kids think differently from normal adults. So too do people with exceptionally low IQs. Why then does every major country on Earth not mandate an IQ test before having a trial? Because intelligence or thinking capacity has nothing to do with criminal culpability. That children are discriminated against is not ok just because children are different. We're all different, mentally as well as physically. True justice is blind to these differences. It's literally why Lady Justice wears a blindfold and holds scales. If somebody gets robbed at gunpoint because of some kid's adrenaline pump, or raped because some teenager discovered hormones, that does not make it ok.

My opponent points out a small proportion may be manipulated in jails. First, this is not a debate only about jails. It's about treating kids fairly in the justice system. Even if my opponent can point out a hundred minor practical flaws affecting a handful of people, that does not warrant unfair treatment for all children. Second, most countries have special prison wards for young offenders, just as they have wards for prisoners of different genders. There are numerous practical reasons for this. Third, if adults could always see through these tricks, then prisons would not be breeding grounds for crime. It's the very fact that manipulation occurs already that makes them so. Fourth, many have also found good role models in prison. Just like how in life, you can meet good and bad people.

What my opponent advocates at the end is restorative, rather than punitive, justice. Not only is that the default for children currently - it's also generally seen as the default for adults in most countries. Most if not all judges would much rather a person attend drug rehab than go in prison. They'd rather send somebody to counselling for domestic violence, than a jail cell. I know because I used to be on the board of such an organisation which provided counselling services on contract to the government. But even if they didn't, it's probable that this would become the new normal as I pointed out in my first round.

This being said there always comes a point where firm discipline is required. If you look at which countries have the least crimes by population, it's not really places with the most liberal justice policies, but often places with harsh punishments. Poverty and unemployment tend to be drivers of higher crime, while strict policing and harsh penalties universally reduce it. As for rebels taking over the government, I'd like to cite Star Wars Episode 3 as proof that the galactic empire will never be destroyed by such rebel forces. If my opponent will protest that that's just entirely fanciful, well, so is his argument.

Finally, my opponent points out that adults have at least learnt to live. By this logic, I should be considered a kid because I find adulting really hard & still haven't figured much of it out.

The resolution is affirmed.