Affirmative Case: January/February 2000

On April 21, 1999 Dylan Klebold, 17, with the help of Eric Harris walked into Columbine High School and killed 12 students and one teacher. Had Dylan lived, and been tried by the juvenile justice system, he would have been let out in two years or less because under Colorado State Law the maximum sentence for someone tried as a juvenile is a maximum of two years regardless the crime. This is definately not a sufficeient way to punish a killer of 13 people. Incidents such as this lead me to affirm todays resolution which states Resolved: Violent Juvenile Offenders ought to be Treated as Adults in the Criminal Justice System.

In order to clarify todays resolution I offer the following definitions taken from the American Heritage Dictionary and Websters dicitonary:
violent- extreme physical force or rough action.
juvenile- a young person
offend- to violate a law or rule.
ought- moral obligation or duty
treated- to regard or consider a certain way
adult- one who has attained legal age
criminal- pertaining to the administration of penal law as distinguised from with law.
justice- the administration and procedure of law
system- a set of interelated ideas, principals, rules, procedures, or laws

The highest value is todays round is that of justice. Justice is giving people what they are due. These juveniles do the same violent crimes as adults and therefore should be punished in the same manner.

I will support my value with the criteria of Mill's Theory of Utility. Mill's Theory of Utility supports the idea that something is morally good if it provides the greatest good for the greatest number. Treating juveniles as adults will provide for justice and a more efficient system than the juvenile justice system.

I will affirm todays resolution with three contentions: juveniles ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system, the juvenile justice system does not provide justice or what is best for society, and treating juveniles as adults will deter youth crime.

Let's first direct our attention to CONTENTION ONE: Juveniles ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system.
They should be treated this way because even juveniles know that violent crimes are bad and they commit the same crimes. First even juveniles know that violent crimes are bad. Even the youngest children know that murder, rape, and assault are not acceptably. As Stephen J. Morse, professor of law and psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology "It does not take much life experience to understand how killing, raping, burning, stealing, and so on affects others. To understand the consequences of these actions does not require the sophistication and moral subtlety that only experience can provide." Second, these juvenile offenders are commiting the exact same crimes as the adults so they should be treated this way. Crimes such as murder and rape are very much adult crimes. According to Ernest Van den Haag of Punishing Criminals says "There is little reasoning left for not holding juveniles responsible under the same laws that apply to adults. The victim of a 14-year-old murder or rapist is as dead or as raped as the victim of an older one. The need for social defense or protection is the same." Juveniles can clearly know that the crimes they commit are wrong and they commit the same crimes as adults. It is only justice to treat violent juvenile offenders as adults. When we do this it will show equality for the victims and provide for the best for society. The juvenile justice system does not provide this which leads me to

CONTENTION TWO: The Juvenile Justice System does not provide Justice or what is Best for Society.
The juvenile justice system was not intended to treat violent juvenile offenders, it provides a lack of information, and lets juveniles off with unequal punishments. First, the juvenile justice system was formed in the 1800s for basic juvenile offenders. Todays availability of weapons has lead to a surge in violent juvenile crime that the original court was not designed to treat. Second, the juvenile justice system provides a lack of information. According to CQ Researcher, 1994, "In a national survey of prosecutors, half the respondents said they normally received little or no juvenile record information on even the most serious young adult offenders in their juridiction." The reason this is is because in most states, police cannot usually take fingerprints or photographs of the juveniles. Third, the juvenile justice system lets the juveniles off with unequal punishments. In many state laws, such as Colorado, the maximum time a juvenile that goes through the juvenile justice system is two years. This means that violent juveniles can get out of jail by the time they are nineteen. They also have easier punishments and juveniles know this. Colorado State Representative Jeanne Adkins says, "If you're in the institutions talking to the kids, they see the juvenile system as a breeze, a joke. You have adult gang members encouraging younger kids to commit crimes for them because 'Hey, you'll get off easy'-and they do!" Clearly the juvenile justice system is not best for society when dealing with violent juvenile offenders or providing for justice. Because of the juvenile justice system among other things, we need a deterence to violent juvenile crime which brings me to

CONTENTION THREE: Treating Juveniles as Adults will Deter Youth Crime.
It has become a necessity to try to curb youth crime, send the right message, and punishing them as adults will deter youth crime. First, it is neccessary to try to curb youth crime. According to the Joint State Government Commission Report of October 1995, juvenile arrest rates for the most serious violent crimes have increased over all about 10% per year annually, particulaly in the categories of murder and aggravated assault." Juvenile crime has become a major problem. One thing we can do to stop this problem is send the right message. Right now the juvenile justice system is sending out the message that they will punish juveniles lightly. Researcher Claire Johnson of Homicide Report interviewed 19 young men convicted of homicide. She says that "Some of them even said point blank that killing the person was worth it because they were only going to be in here a couple of years." This is the message the juvenile justice court is sending: kill someone and you can be free in a couple of years. This is why punishing juveniles as adults will deter youth crime. If juveniles know that they are open to such longer and harsher punishments they will think twice. In this way it will deter most premeditated crimes of juveniles who planned to get off easy and help stop the chronic offenders from continuing to commit crimes. This leads to a detterence in youth crime. In this way they are being treated as equals for the crimes that they commit and provide less crime for society.

In conclusion I have given you three reasons to affirm todays resolution which were: juveniles ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system, the juvenile justice system does not provide justice or what is best for society, and treating juveniles as adults will deter youth crime. We need to treat these violent juveniles offenders as adults in order to provide justice for society. For all these reasons, I must agree with Russ Van Vleet who once said "You can't take someone's life and walk away free in two to three years."

I AM NOW OPEN FOR CROSS EXAMINATION