Table of Contents

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com

Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system
Punishment Affirmative
THESIS: The nature of age distinctions in criminal law is often beholden to emotional debate. No one wants to send a 13 boy to prison. However, when children commit heinous crimes, such as murder or rape, they have proven they have crossed the line into adulthood and should be punished accordingly. The government has n obligation to protect society. A wave of violent crime committed by juveniles in America has prompted states and counties to reform juvenile justice laws. Although it was created to rehabilitate young offenders, no one could have imagined an America where 12 year-olds commit murder without remorse. These offenders should be treated like adults for their adult crimes. Therefore, I stand Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system. Value: Social Welfare. Juveniles charged with violent feloniesthats armed robbery, murder, and rapeare a clear threat to public safety. The duty of the government is to protect the welfare of the public. This was expressed by Michael Goodhart, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Pittsburgh, 2006, Human Rights and Non-State Actors, Non-State Actors in the Human Universe, p. 25 The social contract establishes public and private realms; the public, the realm of civil society and government, is created explicitly by the contract and establishes the legitimate power of the state, at least for so long as the state fulfills its obligation to protect the rights of citizens. The social contract also structures the private realm, both in the immediate sense that what is private is determined by those "reserved" or "retained" rights held by citizens qua natural individuals, and in the mediate sense that public authority regulates and maintains the private sphere through various laws and institutions. The two realms are mutually constitutive. This is a just perspective on government obligations. Securing the will of the people limits the excess of democracy and economic growth Morton Halperin, Senior Vice President of the Center for American Progress and Director of the Open Society Policy Center, Et al, 2005. THE DEMOCRACY ADVANTAGE: HOW DEMOCRACIES PROMOTE PROSPERITY, p. 12. The multiplicity of influences on the decision-making process in democracies also leads to more moderate and nuanced policies. This moderating influence contributes to one of the most distinctive qualities of democratic developmentits steadiness. The ups and downs of economic growth in low-income countries are smaller in democracies. Rather than experiencing alternating bouts of boom and bust, economies in democracies are more likely to undergo a stable pattern of moderate gains and small declines. For poor democracies, that quality of steadiness is exceedingly important, for it means that they are more able than countries run by dictators to avoid economic and humanitarian catastrophes. For broad segments of their populations, this is the difference between life and death. Criteria: Utilitarianism. You should vote for the side that best upholds the governments obligation to protect the public good. In the context of juvenile transfers, that can best be accomplished through the lens of utilitarianism Brian G. Sellers, doctoral student in the Department of Criminology, University of South Florida, and Bruce A. Arrigo, Spring, 2009, Adolescent Transfer, Developmental Maturity, and Adjudicative Competence, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 99 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 435, Lexis Nexis Interestingly, Steinberg and Schwartz suggested that researchers should examine the utilitarian perspective with respect to juvenile transfer policies. As they noted, one could "raise questions about fairness and justice and probe whether treating juvenile crime in a particular way strikes an acceptable balance between the rights of the offender, the interests of the offended, and the concerns of the community."

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Punishment Affirmative
OBSERVATION ONE: THE JUVENILE CRIME WAVE A. JUVENILES ARE INCREASINGLY COMMITTING SERIOUS CRIMES Kristin K. Zinsmaster, J.D. Candidate, 2010, University of Minnesota Law School, November, 2009, In Re the Welfare of Due Process, Minnesota Law Review, 94 Minn. L. Rev. 168, Lexis Nexis The fact that incarceration in juvenile correctional facilities is shown to have a negative impact on all of the above, as well as on the mental health, and the educational and occupational achievement of juvenile offenders, is, however, illustrative. Researchers, legislators, and lawyers know that other means of correction work better than secure confinement in terms of true rehabilitation. Despite this knowledge, detention of young offenders continues to increase. This fact further suggests that the true purpose of juvenile detention is the punishment and warehousing of juveniles rather than any form of paternal assistance that would make the juvenile system fundamentally different from the adult system. B. THE PUBLIC STRONGLY SUPPORTS JUVENILE TRANSFERS FOR VIOLENT OFFENSES David L. Myers, Ph.D., Department of Criminology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, April 2003, Adult Crime, Adult Time: Punishing Violent Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1:2, p. 174. During the 1990s, these reforms resulted in increasing numbers of juveniles being sent to the adult system, particularly for violent offenses. Furthermore, efforts to increase the number of youth sent to adult court appear to be fueled by strong public support. Survey research in the past 10 years consistently shows a majority of the respondents favor trying juveniles in adult court for serious felonies, with roughly 75% of the typical adults surveyed believing that violent juvenile offenders should be treated as adults. C. COMMUNITY SENTIMENT LIES IN PROVIDING JUST DESERTS Nicole M. Garberg, M.S. and Terry M. Libkuman, Ph.D., 2009, Community Sentiment and the Juvenile Offender: Should Juveniles Charged with Felony Murder be Waived into the Adult Criminal Justice System?, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, vol. 27, p. 554 Community sentiment shifted from a rehabilitation philosophy to a get tough or just deserts philosophy, reflecting the notion that the punishment should fit the crime. Under this philosophy the defendants level of responsibility is used to decide punishment. The sentence or punishment that the offender receives must be in proportion to the damage done to society by the criminal act, a view that is consistent with a basic tenet of attribution theory that punitive reactions are a result of the attribution of blame. Although many state juvenile courts have now adopted a just deserts philosophy, originally for a youth to be sentenced under this philosophy the youth was removed from the juvenile court and tried in the adult criminal court. Therefore, a waiver system was created so that juvenile offenders could be transferred to the adult criminal court system

OBSERVATION TWO: JUVENILE TRANSFERS ARE JUSTIFIED A. CONTRARY TO CRITICS, THE TWO SYSTEMS ARE VIRTUALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE Kristin K. Zinsmaster, J.D. Candidate, 2010, University of Minnesota Law School, November, 2009, In Re the Welfare of Due Process, Minnesota Law Review, 94 Minn. L. Rev. 168, Lexis Nexis Troublingly, many states now call their juvenile detention centers by the same names as their adult facilities and include prison-like language in the descriptions of the centers. It may be true that a state could offer the juveniles housed in a particular facility, whatever its name, opportunities for treatment and more favorable living conditions not offered to adults. The literature on conditions of confinement in juvenile detention facilities, however, points in the opposite direction.

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Punishment Affirmative
B. 19% OF PEOPLE VICTIMIZED BY VIOLENT CRIMES WERE ASSAULTED BY JUVENILES Carl McCurley and Howard N. Snyder, The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, July 2004, Victims of Violent Juvenile Crime, http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/201628.pdf, ACC. 12-12-2010 The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBIs) National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) provides detailed information about crimes reported to law enforcement, including law enforcements assessments of which crimes were committed by adult offenders and/or juvenile offenders. Analysis of NIBRS data from 1997 and 19982 shows that 19% of the victims of nonfatal violent crimes were victimized by a juvenile offendereither a juvenile acting alone, multiple juveniles, or juvenile and adult offenders acting together. About two-thirds (62%) of the victims of nonfatal violence committed by juvenile offenders were themselves younger than 18, and about one-third (38%) were adults. C. WHEN JUVENILES COMMIT ADULT CRIMES, THEY SHOULD GO TO ADULT PRISONS Missy Webb, Yahoo Staff Writer, June 7, 2007, Criminal Justice: Should Juveniles Be Treated as Adults?, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/267194/criminal_justice_should_juveniles_be.html, Associated Content, ACC. 12-8-2010 On the other hand, it is thought by some that the more violent the crime is, the more a punishment (rather than rehabilitation) should be implemented. Bradley O'Leary feels that "...all violent juveniles should be tried in adult court and should be subject to adult sentences". When youths commit "adult" offenses there is much pressure from the general public to treat them like adults. Delinquency is not as large a threat as we sometimes make it out to be, but it seems like that because there is always the demand for even more action to be taken against these children. D. JUVENILE TRANSFERS FOR SERIOUS CRIMES PROMOTES PUBLIC SAFETY David L. Myers, Ph.D., Department of Criminology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, April 2003, Adult Crime, Adult Time: Punishing Violent Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1:2, p. 174. Despite recent national decreases in violent juvenile arrest rates, youth violence continues to receive a considerable amount of public attention. As discussed by Greenwood (1995), many commentators have asserted that youthful offenders get off with a slap on the wrist in juvenile court, which in turn greatly contributes to overall levels of serious juvenile crime. In adult court, it is argued, a message can be sent that the lenient treatment of the juvenile system is no longer an option. Instead, harsh criminal court sanctions will be imposed, which will increase accountability and public safety while potentially decreasing motivations to commit future crimes. E. OUR SOCIAL DUTY IS TO PUNISH OFFENDERS, NOT REHABILITATE THEM Missy Webb, Yahoo Staff Writer, June 7, 2007, Criminal Justice: Should Juveniles Be Treated as Adults?, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/267194/criminal_justice_should_juveniles_be.html, Associated Content, ACC. 12-8-2010 Deliver real rehabilitation. The present juvenile system allows for murderers and truants to go through the same exact procedures. Make juveniles and their parents accountable for their actions. The most important step is to intervene early in life to prevent violence later. The important thing to remember is that society has a duty to punish offenders, regardless of their age, not to rehabilitate them. They should serve time like adults and even face the ultimate solution for violent offenders, no matter what age. We need to send a message out to adults and children alike: "Mess around with the law and you are going to spend time in jail, and jail life ain't pretty". The main point is: You do the crime, you do the time.

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Punishment Affirmative CRITICISM OF THE ADULT SYSTEM IS UNFOUNDED
1. JUVENILE JUSTICE IS VIRTUALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE ADULT SYSTEM NOW Robert Anthonsen, Staff Writer, Spring, 2010, Furthering the Goal of Juvenile Rehabilitation, The Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 13 J. Gender Race & Just. 729, Lexis Nexis Despite the Minnesota juvenile justice system's philosophy of rehabilitation, public perception pressured changes that made the juvenile justice system similar to the adult criminal courts. In Minnesota, juvenile arrests increased ten percent from 1980 to 1991. This increase in juvenile crime produced fear and prompted the Minnesota Legislature to amend the stated purpose of the Juvenile Court Act. The legislature revised the Act and established a new goal of promoting public safety and reducing juvenile delinquency. This change from rehabilitation to retribution marked the beginning of a development where the juvenile justice system became increasingly similar to the adult criminal courts. 2. STATISTICS OF JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE OFFENDERS ARE SERIOUSLY FLAWED Charles D. Stimson, Senior Legal Fellow and Andrew M. Grossman, Senior Legal Policy Analyst in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, October 22, 2009, Adult Time for Adult Crime: Manufacturing Statistics for 19-Year-Old Juveniles, http://blog.heritage.org/?p=17808, ACC. 12-12-2010 Nearly every report, newspaper article, editorial, and court brief on this topic states that there are 2,225 juvenile offenders serving life-without-parole sentences in the United States. Both the origin of that number and the way it has been used raise great concerns about the veracity of the facts supplied by activists seeking to put an end to the sentence. Most sources cite the number to a 2005 Amnesty International/Human Rights Watch report. (One exception is the University of San Francisco Law Schools 2007 report, which states categorically that there are 2,381 juveniles serving life without parole.) An investigation into the source of the AI/HRW number reveals serious flaws. 3. ALMOST EVERY STATE ALLOWS JUVENILE TRANSFERS TO ADULT PRISONS Missy Webb, Yahoo Staff Writer, June 7, 2007, Criminal Justice: Should Juveniles Be Treated as Adults?, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/267194/criminal_justice_should_juveniles_be.html, Associated Content, ACC. 12-8-2010 In the past 10 years, almost every state has passed laws or made amendments to current legislature to make it easier to prosecute and sentence juveniles as adults. In 1994 various state legislatures introduced over 700 bills to "move troubled youngsters from specialized juvenile facilities to adult prisons". Creators of these tougher policies say that they are fed up with a system that offers a little more than a slap on the wrist to juveniles who commit serious crimes. Some even question as to whether or not repeat offenders should be rehabilitated. Juvenile court judges agree that the decision as to which kids to treat as adults and which to treat as kids is very difficult. 4. JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORMS ARE A SHAM DISGUISE FOR ADULT SYSTEM CHANGES Christopher Slobogin, Milton Underwood Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School, and Mark R. Fondacaro, Professor of Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, November, 2009, Juvenile Justice: The Fourth Option, Iowa Law Review, 95 Iowa L. Rev. 1, Lexis Nexis The drafters of the Juvenile Justice Standards, although focused on just deserts, also obliquely recognized that protection of the public is a legitimate goal of juvenile justice. The Standards do not specifically designate public safety as one of the purposes of juvenile-justice sanctions, but their dispositional provisions do indicate that probation conditions should take into account "whether the juvenile presents a substantial danger to others." And the most adult-like juvenile-justice reforms of recent times were driven in part by the specter of the soulless adolescent "superpredator" who, unless confined, would routinely harm others.

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Punishment Affirmative JUVENILES ARE BEING TREATED AS ADULTS NOW
1. TRANSFERS ARE INCREASING NOW FOR AT LEAST TEN REASONS Nicole M. Garberg, M.S. and Terry M. Libkuman, Ph.D., 2009, Community Sentiment and the Juvenile Offender: Should Juveniles Charged with Felony Murder be Waived into the Adult Criminal Justice System?, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, vol. 27, p. 555 The transfer of juveniles to adult courts continues to increase, with 50 states allowing for transfer (Fagan & Zimring, 2000, Patapis, 2006). Factors that predict transfer include the offenders age, the age at onset of delinquent behavior, dangerousness, sophisticationmaturity, presence of a prior record, previous detainment in a juvenile detention center, using a firearm in the commission of the offense, being charged with murder, manslaughter, or drug sales, committing a heinous or injurious offense, and having more than one victim. 2. JUVENILE TRANSFERS ARE HIGH NOW AND GROWING Jon R. Sorensen, PhD, professor of justice studies at Prairie View A&M University, September 2008, Juvenile Inmates in an Adult Prison System: Rates of Disciplinary Misconduct and Violence, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35:9, p. 1187 In 2005, more than 23,000 youths younger than 18 years old were prosecuted in the adult criminal court (Perry, 2006). In addition to transferring cases to adult criminal court, 20 states as of 1999 had developed provisions for blended sentencing. Under certain conditions, this allowed juveniles sentenced to lengthy terms in juvenile court to be transferred to the adult correctional system after reaching a particular age (Redding & Howell, 2000). It is not surprising that the marked change in public policy toward juvenile offenders in the past 30 years has resulted in higher numbers of juveniles who enter into adult prisons. 3. TRANSFERS FOR SERIOUS CRIMES ARE INCREASINGLY COMMON Nicole M. Garberg, M.S. and Terry M. Libkuman, Ph.D., 2009, Community Sentiment and the Juvenile Offender: Should Juveniles Charged with Felony Murder be Waived into the Adult Criminal Justice System?, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, vol. 27, p. 563 In general, the analyses indicated that the likelihood of being transferred into the adult criminal justice system increased as the defendants level of involvement in the crimes of armed robbery and felony murder increased. Thus, the hypothesis that the defendants would be transferred in a manner that was proportional to their involvement was supported. The triggerman was by far the most likely to be transferred into the adult criminal justice system, with substantial decreases in transfer for the sidekick, lookout, and getaway driver. 4. JUVENILE TRANSFER RATES ARE INCREASING NOW Jon R. Sorensen, PhD, professor of justice studies at Prairie View A&M University, September 2008, Juvenile Inmates in an Adult Prison System: Rates of Disciplinary Misconduct and Violence, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35:9, p. 1186 Although offenders who are less than 18 years old at admission to prison represent a minority of inmates in adult prisons nationwide, they are a growing presence. A Bureau of Justice Assistance publication reported that the number of offenders younger than 18 admitted to state prison more than doubled from 3,400 in 1985 to 7,400 in 1997. In 2000, juveniles accounted for around 2% of new court commitments to adult state prisons. The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that there were 4,100 new court commitments to adult state prison systems in 2002 involving youth younger than 18 at the time of admission.

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Punishment Affirmative JUVENILES COMMIT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF SERIOUS CRIMES
1. YOUNG CHILDREN COMMIT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CRIME IN AMERICA Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 Unfortunately, young children commit a significant number of crimes in the United States each year. In 2004 (the most recent year for which data is available), approximately 150,000 children aged 12 and younger came into contact with the justice system. Contrary to popular perception, the data shows a decrease in juvenile crime as compared to 10 years prior (Figure 1). Figure 1 below illustrates the types and numbers of crimes for which young children have been referred to the justice system over the twenty-year period from 19852004. 2. 10% OF ALL MURDERS A COMMITTED BY JUVENILES AND THE RATE IS INCREASING Erin Quinn, Staff Writer, October 9, 2010, Children who kill pose dilemma for justice system, Gannett News Service, Lexis Nexis, Nationally, 10 percent of all murders are committed by juveniles, according to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. That's about 1,043 murders a year. "The younger kids are committing more serious, violent crimes," said Davidson County Juvenile Court Judge Betty Adams Green. "It used to be that the kids charged with murder or aggravated rape were 16, 17. We're seeing more 13-, 14-, 15-year-olds. That's alarming to me." 3. YOUTH HOMICIDE RATES ARE INCREASING NATIONALLY Kathryn Gregory, Staff writer, August 30, 2010, City crime up despite drop nationwide, Charleston Gazette (West Virginia), p. A1 According to Charleston Police Chief Brent Webster, the city saw four homicides in 2008. In 2009, six homicides were committed in city limits. In the first eight months of 2010, there have been 10 homicides. Teenagers have been charged in the deaths of at least seven of the last 25 Charleston homicide victims. "I am not surprised because it seems juvenile crime has been on the rise or constant nationally the past decade," said Webster. "Often, rises in homicide rates are part of a larger trend," said Laura Dugan, associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Maryland. "As the recession continues to stress out communities, illegal means of obtaining income grows. This often affects the homicide rate, especially if youth are involved," she said. 4. MORE AND MORE JUVENILES ARE COMMITTING VIOLENT CRIMES David Harris, Staff Writer, December 09, 2010, Officials: Juvenile crime takes violent turn, Flint Journals MLive.com, http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2010/12/officials_juvenile_crime_takes.html, ACC. 12-122010 Those who work in the juvenile system say more juveniles are committing violent crimes. Genesee Circuit Judge David Newblatt said he sees more juveniles involved in crimes with guns or knives. What Im seeing quite a bit of is a general breakdown in the family, and I think thats causing a lot of what you are seeing. A lot of these kids dont have the foundation.

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Punishment Affirmative JUVENILE TRANSFERS PROMOTE PUBLIC SAFETY
1. STATES ARE CHANGING STATUTES NOW TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY John C. Lore III, Associate Clinical Professor of Law and Co-Director, Children's Justice Clinic, Rutgers University School of Law, Winter 2009, Pretrial Self-incrimination in Juvenile Court: Why a Comprehensive Pretrial Privilege is Needed to Protect Children and Enhance the Goal of Rehabilitation, University of Louisville Law Review, 47 U. Louisville L. Rev. 439, Lexis Nexis Some states have shifted the focus of their juvenile court statutes to incorporate more adult-court-like considerations such as punishment, accountability, and public safety. For example, the preamble of the Washington Juvenile Justice Act explicitly provides that "youth . . . be held accountable for their offenses" and that the state should "provide for punishment commensurate with the age, crime, and criminal history of the juvenile offender." 2. STATE REFORMS ARE EXPANDING TO EMPHASIZE PUBLIC SAFETY THROUGH TRANSFERS Sara Sun Beale, Charles L.B. Lowndes Professor, Duke Law School, Summer, 2009, You've Come a Long Way, Baby: Two Waves of Juvenile Justice Reforms as Seen from Jena, Louisiana, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 44 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 511, Lexis Nexis All states allow juveniles to be tried as adults under certain circumstances, by way of transfer laws. States use one of three mechanisms to determine which cases will be transferred to criminal court: judicial transfer (also called judicial waiver), statutory exclusion (also called "mandatory" or "automatic" transfer), and prosecutorial discretion (also called "direct filing"). Furthermore, in many states multiple mechanisms are in place. Between 1992 and 1995, forty states adopted or modified laws making it easier to prosecute juveniles as adults in criminal court, and fortyseven states and the District of Columbia made changes in their laws targeting juveniles who commit serious or violent crimes. In contrast to the traditional regime, which based dispositions on the needs of the juvenile with the goal of rehabilitation, the states increasingly focused on the offense, with a goal of punishment. Indeed, by 1997 about one-third of the states had enacted laws redefining the purpose of their juvenile courts to emphasize public safety, certain sanctions, and/or the accountability of offenders. 3. THE MASSIVE UPTICK IN JUVENILE CRIME JUSTIFIES TRANSFERS Wendy Murphy, Staff Writer, August 18, 2009, Not Just Kids Behaving Badly, Human Events Online, ACC. 1210-2010, www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33195 And he notes that when it comes to crime "rates," the U.S. ranks highly in every category, including juvenile crime. Stimson also notes a recent uptick in severity of juvenile violence in the U.S. which has prompted states across the country to lower the age at which juveniles can be transferred to adult court for prosecution. This uptick followed a long period of time during which criminal justice policy centered around a presumption that rehabilitation and not punishment should be the goal of juvenile justice. 4. PUBLIC SUPPORTS TRANSFERS BECAUSE THEY SATISFY SAFETY AND ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERNS David L. Myers, Ph.D., Department of Criminology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, April 2003, Adult Crime, Adult Time: Punishing Violent Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1:2, p. 188. The fact that violent youth can be and seemingly are punished more severely in adult criminal court may be seen by some as enough reason to justify the expanded use of treating juveniles as adults. With the continued popularity of the get-tough philosophy, there is strong support for harsher sanctions, particularly if they appear to increase community safety. Because violent youth in adult court seem to be held more accountable and are subjected to greater and lengthier incapacitation (including both incarceration and additional time on parole, which can be revoked), politicians and the public alike may continue to back transfer provisions.

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Punishment Affirmative ADULT SYSTEM GUARANTEES STRONGER PUNISHMENT
1. ADULT COURT JUDGES ARE CONSTRAINED AND CAN ONLY GIVE HARSH PUNISHMENT Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 The contrasts in sentencing practice between juvenile court and adult criminal court are striking. Juvenile judges have considerable leeway in deciding how to handle young offenders, and the courts aim for individual sentences that promote rehabilitation. In the case of the most serious crimes, more than half the states even offer judges the flexible option of blended sentencing, which typically provides a combination of a juvenile sentence followed by time in an adult prison if a judge determines that the youths progress in the juvenile system is inadequate. But if a young child is sent to adult criminal court to be tried as an adult, judges often lose their discretion to structure an appropriate sentence. 2. JUVENILES RECEIVE HARSHER PENALTIES IN THE ADULT SYSTEM Donna M. Bishop, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, 2009, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, in Reforming Juvenile Justice, J. Junger-Tas and F. Dnkel (eds.), p. 91 Sentences imposed on youths who are convicted in criminal court are not mitigated by virtue of the offenders age. Indeed, research shows that the sentences adolescents receive are harsher than those imposed on comparable adult defendants. Even extreme penalties are not deemed to be inconsistent with youth. Until the Supreme Courts decision in Roper v. Simmons (2005), the death penalty could be imposed on offenders as young as 16. 3. JUVENILES RECEIVE STRONGER PUNISHMENT IN ADULT COURTS David L. Myers, Ph.D., Department of Criminology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, April 2003, Adult Crime, Adult Time: Punishing Violent Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1:2, pp. 187-188. In recent years, most states have moved to strengthen the sanctions available for responding to serious and violent youthful offending. Although a variety of get-tough mechanisms have been adopted, treating juvenile offenders as adults has been very popular. Proponents of transferring juveniles to adult court generally emphasize two perceived advantages with this approach: stronger punishment and greater public safety. Although the waived offenders in this study initially were more likely to be released from predispositional secure custody than were the youth retained in juvenile court, the subsequent treatment received by the offenders in adult court was consistently of a harsher nature. 4. HARSHER SENTENCES ARE DLEIVERED TO JUVENILES IN ADULT COURTS Megan C. Kurlychek, School of Criminal Justice University at Albany, SUNY and Brian D. Johnson, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice University of Maryland, 2010, Juvenality and Punishment: Sentencing Juveniles in Adult Court, Criminology, 48(3), p. 727 However, many studies also have found that significantly harsher punishments are meted out to juveniles in adult court when compared with juveniles in juvenile court, particularly for serious or violent offenses. For instance, Myers (2005) recent examination of Pennsylvania youth reported that after controlling for a broad range of factors, comparable juveniles were significantly more likely to be incarcerated in the adult criminal justice system compared with the juvenile justice system. 5. THE NEWEST STUDIES DISPROVE THE LENIENCY GAP THEORY David L. Myers, Ph.D., Department of Criminology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, April 2003, Adult Crime, Adult Time: Punishing Violent Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1:2, p. 188. The findings of this study contrast with those of earlier studies that found evidence of a leniency gap for youth waived to adult court. However, the results are fairly consistent with those of more recent research that has focused

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com

on violent youthful offenders and found that those in adult court experience higher conviction rates, greater incarceration rates, lengthier periods of confinement, and longer case processing times.

10

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Punishment Affirmative ADULT SYSTEM GUARANTEES STRONGER PUNISHMENT
1. STUDIES SHOW JUVENILES ARE SUBJECT TO HARSHER SENTENCES States News Service, July 28, 2009, First Comprehensive Policy Study on Trying and Sentencing Children As Adults Finds 22 States May Sentence Children Under 12 to Adult Prison, Lexis Nexis The report finds that more than half the states permit children age 12 and under to be treated as adults for criminal justice purposes. In 22 states, plus the District of Columbia, children as young as seven can be prosecuted and tried in adult court where they would be subject to harsh adult sanctions, including long prison terms, mandatory sentences and placement in adult prisons. Four states stand out as providing the worst outcomes for pre-adolescent offenders, given the combination of transfer policies and adult sentencing laws and practices in those states: Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and South Carolina. 2. TRANSFERRED JUVENILES ARE SUBJECT TO MANDATORY MINIMUMS Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 Mandatory sentences, by their nature, are intended to disallow consideration of individual circumstances relating to the offense or the offender. This is especially problematic when a young child is the subject of an adult criminal court proceeding. A judge may recognize that a harsh, multi-decade sentence is inappropriate for a 12-year-old, for example, but the judges hands are tied when it comes to alternative sentencing options. Many judges have decried the lack of discretion they have to tailor a sentence for a child who has committed a serious crime. 3. JUVENILE TRANSFERS FOSTER HIGHER CONVICTION RATES David L. Myers, Ph.D., Department of Criminology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, April 2003, Adult Crime, Adult Time: Punishing Violent Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1:2, p. 188. The transferred juveniles were more likely to be convicted, and of those who were convicted, youth in adult court were more likely to be convicted of a targeted offense of robbery or aggravated assault. Of the convicted offenders, those who were waived were also more likely to be incarcerated. Of those who were incarcerated, the transferred juveniles experienced longer periods of confinement. Finally, the youth in adult court encountered much longer periods of case processing, thereby delaying final resolution of case outcomes. 4. MANDATORY SENTENCES GUARANTEE A DISPROPORTIONATELY HARSH SENTENCE Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 One of the main reasons that children are treated so harshly when they are transferred to the adult criminal justice system is that they often face the imposition of mandatory sentences intended for adult offenders. Despite the vast developmental differences between young children and adults, judges often cannot consider age as a mitigating factor in sentencing and they are required in many states to sentence children to long prison terms without the possibility of parole. Restricting judges from considering the specifics of the young offender in sentencing is in direct conflict with the American Bar Associations guidelines for dealing with youth in the criminal justice system.

11

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com

12

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Punishment Affirmative THE JUVENILE SYSTEM IS TOO LENIENT
1. JUVENILE COURTS ARE TOO LENIENT Missy Webb, Yahoo Staff Writer, June 7, 2007, Criminal Justice: Should Juveniles Be Treated as Adults?, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/267194/criminal_justice_should_juveniles_be.html, Associated Content, ACC. 12-8-2010 In today's society there are several issues facing the juvenile court. For example, many "juvenile court judges may not be held in the same esteem as their criminal court counterparts", the juvenile court has often been referred to as "kiddie court", implying that the offenders are simply given a "slap on the wrist" or warning for the crime they committed. This is not thought to be sufficient enough to prevent future re-occurrences (Mays & Winfree Jr. 2000). 2. STUDIES PROVE JUVENILES RECEIVE STRONGER SENTENCES IN ADULT COURTS Megan C. Kurlychek, School of Criminal Justice University at Albany, SUNY and Brian D. Johnson, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice University of Maryland, 2010, Juvenality and Punishment: Sentencing Juveniles in Adult Court, Criminology, 48(3), p. 746 Our findings clearly indicate that, in the current research context, juveniles processed in adult court, on average, receive an additional sentencing penalty related to their juvenile status. Although some earlier work was consistent with this finding, the results of this study are the first to provide evidence of a juvenile penalty after accounting for important selection effects inherent in the comparison of waived juveniles and young adult offenders. Contrary to theoretical arguments that juvenile offenders will be treated with leniency, we found compelling evidence that they receive more severe sentencing outcomes than comparable young adults. 3. LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE FOR SERIOUS CRIMES IS A JUST PUNISHMENT FOR JUVENILES The Heritage Foundation, August 17, 2009, Adult Time for Adult Crimes: Exposing the Movement to Set Free Juvenile Killers and Violent Offenders, The Heritage Foundation's Allison Auditorium, ACC. 12-11-2010, http://www.heritage.org/Multimedia/Audio/Adult-Time-for-Adult-Crimes--Exposing-the-Movement-to-Set-FreeJuvenile-Killers-and-Violent-Offenders Life without parole for the very worst juvenile offenders is reasonable, constitutional, and (appropriately) rare. In response to the Western world's worst juvenile crime problem, legislators in nearly every state have enacted this measure to protect citizens and hold these dangerous criminals accountable. But the continued viability of these sentences is at risk from misleading activist campaigns and court cases - including two before the Supreme Court that seek to substitute international law for legislative judgments and constitutional text. 4. THE BEST INTEREST STANDARD DOES NOT ASSUME INCREASINGLY VIOLENT YOUTH Missy Webb, Yahoo Staff Writer, June 7, 2007, Criminal Justice: Should Juveniles Be Treated as Adults?, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/267194/criminal_justice_should_juveniles_be.html, Associated Content, ACC. 12-8-2010 It is true that the juvenile system was created with the juveniles' best interest at hand, but back then, they were committing minor offenses; today they are felonies. "Juveniles account for almost half of the arrests for serious crimes in the United States today". In a sense, the juvenile justice is failing to protect society, because the more dangerous delinquents aren't being moved to the adult system.

13

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Punishment Affirmative ADULT CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROTECTS JUVENILE NEEDS
1. JUVENILE FACILITIES FAIL TO PROVIDE REHABILITATION OR SAFETY Mark Soler, Executive Director of the Center for Children's Law and Policy, 2009, Juvenile Justice: Lessons For A New Era, Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 16 Geo. J. Poverty Law & Pol'y 483, Lexis Nexis The most recent Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement found that 92,854 youth were confined in residential facilities across the country on one day in 200006, n184 a decrease from the count in 1997 of 105,055. Despite this decrease, many juvenile facilities struggle to maintain safety and promote rehabilitation; reports of abuses and even deaths of youth in juvenile facilities in recent years have received significant news coverage. Even CNN carried a feature story about the extent of dangerous conditions in juvenile facilities. 2. THE ADULT SYSTEM ADEQUATELY ACCOMMODATES JUVENILE NEEDS David L. Myers, Ph.D., Department of Criminology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, April 2003, Adult Crime, Adult Time: Punishing Violent Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1:2, p. 189. Perhaps in response to various research findings, some states have moved to provide specific facilities and services for juveniles transferred to the adult system. For example, in Pennsylvania, a new prison was built specifically for violent youth transferred to adult court and subsequently convicted and sentenced to a state prison. At a price of over $70 million, the Pine Grove State Correctional Institute (SCI Pine Grove) was planned to house 500 violent juvenile offenders, offer education and behavioral modification treatment in a therapeutic community environment, and include a strong research emphasis and presence. In general, the facility appeared to be unique in terms of its target population, treatment philosophy, and accessibility for researchers. 3. JUVENILE INSTITUTIONS DENIES RIGHTS AND ADEQUATE CARE SERVICES Mark Soler, Executive Director of the Center for Children's Law and Policy, 2009, Juvenile Justice: Lessons For A New Era, Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 16 Geo. J. Poverty Law & Pol'y 483, Lexis Nexis In addition, incarcerated children have constitutional rights to safety and to adequate medical and mental health care in custody, as well as to due process protections, access to their families and the courts, and to education and other programming. Most courts ruling on conditions in juvenile institutions find those rights in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause as well as in a variety of other state and federal laws including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 4. JUVENILE ADJUDICATION UNDERMINES TREATMENT SERVICES Kristin K. Zinsmaster, J.D. Candidate, 2010, University of Minnesota Law School, November, 2009, In Re the Welfare of Due Process, Minnesota Law Review, 94 Minn. L. Rev. 168, Lexis Nexis If the purpose of a juvenile adjudication were truly to clear a path for an individual offender into rehabilitative, treatment-based programs, then the adjudication itself would be analogous to a doctor's written order to fill a prescription. One would never expect such an order to come back to haunt the patient in later proceedings. Instead, juvenile adjudications are treated in much the same way as a guilty verdict or plea for an adult offender - as a point militating in favor of increased punishment, supervision, and stigma in the future.

14

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Punishment Affirmative CLAIMS OF RACISM ARE MISPLACED
1. RACE STUDIES ON JUVENILE TRANSFERS HAVE MIXED RESULTS Kareem L. Jordan, University of North Florida, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, and Tina L. Freiburger, University of WisconsinMilwaukee, 2010, Examining the Impact of Race and Ethnicity on the Sentencing of Juveniles in the Adult Court, Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21:2 p. 188 The results examining whether race affects the sentences of juveniles in the adult court, however, has produced mixed results. Kupchiks (2006) research on the sentences of juveniles in the adult court focused on comparing their experiences with juveniles in the juvenile court. He found that White defendants were less likely to be incarcerated than African Americans, with the race effect being larger in the adult court than in the juvenile court. Kurlychek and Johnson (2004) results showed, however, that a significant disparity was not present in the sentences of Hispanic, Black, and White juvenile defendants in adult court. 2. THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS RIDDEN WITH RACIST PRACTICES RiShawn Biddle, Editor, November 23, 2010, This is Dropout Nation: The High Cost of Juvenile Justice, Dropout Nation, http://dropoutnation.net/2010/11/23/dropout-nation-high-cost-juvenile-justice/, ACC. 12-8-2010 America spends $5.7 billion on incarcerating juveniles, billions more on the entire juvenile justice system and gets nothing but tragedy in return. Studies in Florida, New York and Virginia suggest that 55 percent of incarcerated juveniles will end up being rearrested, while 56 percent of alleged youth offenders will any previous referral to court will end up back in front of a judge before reaching age 18. And for poor black and Latino kids, juvenile justice is a particular misnomer; for example, blacks make up 41 percent of all detention caseloads in juvenile delinquency cases (even though they account for 30 percent of all juvenile delinquency cases). 3. THE LACK OF JURIES IN THE JUVENILE SYSTEM MAINTAINS RACIAL DISARITY Kristin K. Zinsmaster, J.D. Candidate, 2010, University of Minnesota Law School, November, 2009, In Re the Welfare of Due Process, Minnesota Law Review, 94 Minn. L. Rev. 168, Lexis Nexis Systems plagued with problems of racial disparity and probable discrimination have an incentive to rely on the province of the jury to guard against making the problem even worse. This is true of the juvenile justice system, with its well-documented problem of disproportionate minority confinement. Juries of laypersons may not always reach different conclusions than a judge would. Perhaps racial disparity would continue to be an issue even if juries were available. Taking this as true, however, allowing guilt to be determined by a jury as opposed to a single judge would increase the appearance of the legitimacy of the outcome, and perhaps increase confidence in the system as well. As with so many aspects of criminal justice, appearances and public perception are important components of due process; the juvenile justice system is no different in this regard. 4. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH DATA TO PROVE RACIAL DISPARITY IN TRANSFERS Kareem L. Jordan, University of North Florida, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, and Tina L. Freiburger, University of WisconsinMilwaukee, 2010, Examining the Impact of Race and Ethnicity on the Sentencing of Juveniles in the Adult Court, Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21:2 p. 188 Racial disparity is found among juveniles in juvenile court and among young adults in the adult court. However, only two studies have examined juveniles in the adult court and have produced mixed findings for the effect of race. In addition, the previous studies focused on comparing the experiences of transferred juveniles with young adults or juveniles in the juvenile court. No prior research exists that focuses specifically on possible variations among transferred juveniles.

15

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Punishment Affirmative CLAIMS OF RACISM ARE MISPLACED
1. MIXED FINDINGS SHOW THERE IS NO RACIAL IMPACT ON SENTENCING Kareem L. Jordan, University of North Florida, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, and Tina L. Freiburger, University of WisconsinMilwaukee, 2010, Examining the Impact of Race and Ethnicity on the Sentencing of Juveniles in the Adult Court, Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21:2 p. 188 Given the mixed findings of the sparse research conducted on this population, it remains unknown whether race and ethnicity will similarly affect the sentences of juveniles in the adult court and whether race and ethnicity will interact with similar variables to further influence the sentences of this population. 2. JUVENILES OF COLOR DISPROPORTIONATELY OCCUPY THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM Mark Soler, Executive Director of the Center for Children's Law and Policy, 2009, Juvenile Justice: Lessons For A New Era, Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 16 Geo. J. Poverty Law & Pol'y 483, Lexis Nexis In addition, youth of color disproportionately and unnecessarily enter and penetrate the juvenile justice system. They are more likely than White youth to be arrested, even for the same offense, and more likely to go deeper into the system than White youth. Through successive stages of disproportionate treatment, they suffer a "cumulative disadvantage" in the system when compared with White counterparts. 3. MINORITY JUVENILES TRANSFERRED ARE MORE LIKELY TO GET PROBATION Kareem L. Jordan, University of North Florida, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, and Tina L. Freiburger, University of WisconsinMilwaukee, 2010, Examining the Impact of Race and Ethnicity on the Sentencing of Juveniles in the Adult Court, Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21:2 p. 195 One of the most substantive findings was the combination of being Black and transferred either through prosecutorial or legislative waiver greatly increasing the likelihood of these youth receiving probation instead of jail, especially when the independent effect of being Black, alone, decreases the likelihood of being sentenced to probation (see Table 2). Considering both legislative and prosecutorial waivers are automatically handled in the adult system (as opposed to going through the discretion of a juvenile court judge who weighs many factors, including school, family, and environment), criminal court judges may view Black youth transferred through these methods as not needing jail sentences, as compared with probation. 4. RACIAL INEQUALITY IS REPRESENTED ON MULTIPLE LEVELS IN THE JUVENILE SYSTEM Mark Soler, Executive Director of the Center for Children's Law and Policy, 2009, Juvenile Justice: Lessons For A New Era, Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 16 Geo. J. Poverty Law & Pol'y 483, Lexis Nexis Inequitable treatment of youth of color occurs in several ways in the juvenile justice system. First, there is an overrepresentation of youth of color throughout the system. Second, at some points in the system, there is disparate and harsher treatment of youth of color compared to White youth who are charged with similar offenses. Third, youth of color disproportionately and unnecessarily enter and penetrate the juvenile justice system.

16

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Punishment Affirmative RACISM SHOULD NOT BE A DECISION CRITERIA
1. THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS FIRMLY ENTRENCHED IN RACE CATEGORIES Sharona Hoffman, Associate Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law. LL.M. in Health Law, University of Houston, Winter, 2004, Is There a Place for "Race" as a Legal Concept?, Arizona State Law Journal, Lexis Nexis It is in the field of law that the concept of "race" has mattered most and has been treated with the greatest confusion and inconsistency. One commentator recently argued that many historical legal actors have always considered "race" to be a social construct and legal fiction. Nevertheless, throughout history, legislatures, courts, and administrative agencies have struggled to classify individuals by "race" and to establish bright-line "racial" categories. 2. THE VERY ACT OF SPEAKING OF RACE MASKS WHITE PRIVILEGE AND RACIAL DOMINATION Neil Gotanda, Associate Professor of Law, Western State Univ. College of Law, Fullerton, J.D., November 1991, A Critique of "Our Constitution is Color-Blind", Stanford Law Review, Nov., 44 Stan. L. Rev. 1, Lexis Nexis The hypodescent rule when combined with color-blind constitutionalism, conveys a complex and powerful ideology that supports racial subordination. Briefly, hypodescent imposes racial subordination through its implied validation of white racial purity. Subordination occurs in the very act of a white person recognizing a Black person's race. Much of constitutional discourse disguises that subordination by treating racial categories as if they were stable and immutable. Finally, the treatment of racial categories as functionally objective devalues the socioeconomic and political history of those placed within them. Through this complex process of assertion, disguise, and devaluation, racial categorization based on hypodescent advances white interests. 3. RACE THINKING REINFORCES PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION. IT SHOULD BE ABANDONED Sharona Hoffman, Associate Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law. LL.M. in Health Law, University of Houston, Winter, 2004, Is There a Place for "Race" as a Legal Concept?, Arizona State Law Journal, Lexis Nexis In the seminal affirmative action case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Justice Blackmun wrote that "in order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race." An even better approach, however, is to eliminate the concept of "race" altogether. "Race" is not only "one of the most frequently misused and misunderstood words in the American vernacular," it is also a dangerous notion that can reinforce prejudice and discrimination. 4. THERE IS NO ONE ROOT CAUSE TO WAR OR VIOLENCE Greg Cashman, Professor of Political Science at Salisbury State University, 2000, What Causes war?: An introduction to theories of international conflict, p. 9 Two warnings need to be issued at this point. First, while we have been using a single variable explanation of war merely for the sake of simplicity, multivariate explanations of war are likely to be much more powerful. Since social and political behaviors are extremely complex, they are almost never explainable through a single factor. Decades of research have led most analysts to reject monocausal explanations of war. For instance, international relations theorist J. David Singer suggests that we ought to move away from the concept of causality since it has become associated with the search for a single cause of war; we should instead redirect our activities toward discovering explanationsa term that implies multiple causes of war, but also a certain element of randomness or chance in their occurrence.

17

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Punishment Affirmative INTERNATIONAL LAW IS DISASTROUS
1. INTERNATIONAL LAW VALIDATES IMPERIALISM Siba NZatioula, John Hopkins Political Scientist, 1996, Sovereigns, Quasi Sovereigns, and Africans, p. 13 The innovators include critical legal theorists of opposing intellectual traditions: Marxists, literary critics, poststructuralists, and others. While liberals aspire to restore the presumed universality of the law, these radical critics maintain that such a condition never existed. The radical critics are joined by another group of innovators, mostly composed of postcolonial scholars and activists. In International Law and Colonialism in Africa, for instance, Umozurike O. Umozurike notes that international law not only validated imperialism and colonial practices but also has, since its inception, been directed toward the promotion of European interests. Umozurike and Third World innovators also point out the inadequacies of the international law system, particularly its failure to restore rights and dignity to postcolonial societies. 2. IMPERIALISM RESULTS IN GENOCIDE, WHICH SHOULD ALWAYS BE REJECTED Benjamin Valentino, PHD, 2004, Final Solutions: Mass Killing and genocides in the Twentieth Century, p. 89 The purpose of an empire is to extract wealth from conquests, but empires would be prohibitively expensive to maintain if each city, state, or province had to be defeated by force and then policed to a man. Imperial leaders, therefore, have strong incentives to adopt a strategy of mass killing as a means of deterring rebellions and resistance within their empire as a method of intimidating future conquests into submission. The large-scale killing of rebellious subjects is intended to demonstrate to all others considering resistance the terrible fate awaiting those who refuse to accept imperial rule. 3. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW ORDERS THE WORLD ALONG A EUROCENTRIC AXIS OF GLOBAL DOMINATION Makau Mutua, Professor of Law and Director, Human Rights Center, State University of NY at Buffalo School of Law, 2002, Terrorism and Human Rights: Power, Culture, and Subordination, Buffalo Human Rights Law Review, 8 Buff. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 1, Lexis-Nexis Thus international law orders the world into the European and the non-European, and gives primacy to the former. This is done by creating the notion of the hierarchy of cultures and peoples. The fundamental principles of international law evidence this inflexible view of the discipline. Sovereignty and statehood are defined in such a way as to exclude or subordinate non-European societies. n4 Membership in international society is a prerogative of American and European powers, which alone decide who -- and on what terms -- belongs to this international society and can benefit from the privileges of international law. Nowhere has this been more evident than in Afghanistan where the United States has arrogated to itself the right to dismantle the state, and to recreate it. The current crisis leaves no doubt about the identity of the masters of the universe. The international legal order erects, preserves, and advances the European and American domination of the globe. 4. HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROMOTION IS A COLONIAL PROJECT. U.S. ECONOMIC INTERESTS COME AT THE EXPENSE OF HUMANITARIAN CONCERNS Deborah M. Weissman, Assoc. Prof. of Law, Univ. of NC School of Law, Spring, 2004, The Human Rights Dilemma, Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 35 Colum. Human Rights L. Rev. 259, Lexis-Nexis The human rights project seems to represent an endeavor of self-evident and self-confirming virtue, but it is more complicated. It arrives in our time possessed of a past. The human rights project has served a variety of uses, often less altruistic than the humanitarian purposes with which it is now associated. Colonial powers often proclaimed humanitarian purpose as justification for conquest and territorial aggrandizement. More recently, human rights concerns have served as a rationale for U.S. military intervention. Human rights norms are subject to malleable standards and have been capable of advancing U.S. strategic and economic interests through coercive means, often at the expense of humanitarian concerns.

18

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Punishment Affirmative JUVENILE TRANSFERS DO NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW
1. LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE FOR JUVENILES DOES NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW Charles D. Stimson, Senior Legal Fellow and Andrew M. Grossman, Senior Legal Policy Analyst in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, November 2, 2009, Adult Time for Adult Crime: America Has No Global Duty to Ban Juvenile Life Sentences, The Heritage Foundation, http://blog.heritage.org/?p=18897, ACC. 12-11-2010 Many opponents of life without parole for juvenile offenders claim that the continued use of this sentence puts the United States in breach of its obligations under international law. Specifically, they name three treaties as barring the administration of this sentence in the United States: the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture. All of these assertions are false. 2. THE CRC DOES NOT LEGALLY GOVERN JUVENILE TRANSFERS Michael E. Tigar, Professor of the Practice of Law at Duke Law School; Emeritus Professor of Law, American University, Washington College of Law, Spring, 2010 What Are We Doing to the Children?: An Essay on Juvenile (In)justice, The Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 7 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 849, Lexis Nexis Often, if that initial decision is to try the child "as an adult," then the later course of events, usually some kind of punishment, will be determined. I will not in this lecture address directly the constitutional and other implications of juvenile confinement conditions. First, we need to study and heed the teachings of transnational law. Professors Dohrn and Birckhead, among many others, have written about the Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC. The CRC did not make international law. It expresses norms that have developed over time, and that had been applied in many contexts. The European Court of Human Rights has recognized these norms. The Supreme Court said in Roper v. Simmons: "[T]he opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions." 3. THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT RATIFIED THE CRC AND IS NOT BINDING Charles D. Stimson, Senior Legal Fellow and Andrew M. Grossman, Senior Legal Policy Analyst in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, November 2, 2009, Adult Time for Adult Crime: America Has No Global Duty to Ban Juvenile Life Sentences, The Heritage Foundation, http://blog.heritage.org/?p=18897, ACC. 12-11-2010 The United States, however, has not ratified the CRC. Although President Clinton signed the treaty in 1995, the Senate has never consented to ratification. Since the United States is not a treaty party, it is therefore not bound by Article 37 or any other provision of that treaty. Even if it were self-executing, the treaty is not a part of U.S. law. Nonetheless, some claim that the CRC is binding on the United States even though it has never been ratified. They make two arguments. The first is that, because the U.S. signed the treaty, it is prohibited from taking actions that would defeat its object and purpose and that continuing to allow life-without-parole sentences for juvenile offenders is such an action. The second is that, because the CRC has been ratified by nearly every other country in the world, it constitutes customary international law that is binding on the United States. Neither of these arguments is valid. 4. NONE OF OUR INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS PRECLUDE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE Charles D. Stimson, Senior Legal Fellow and Andrew M. Grossman, Senior Legal Policy Analyst in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, November 2, 2009, Adult Time for Adult Crime: America Has No Global Duty to Ban Juvenile Life Sentences, The Heritage Foundation, http://blog.heritage.org/?p=18897, ACC. 12-11-2010 As described above, some activists and academics go further, claiming that the laws of foreign nations, as opposed to treaties that the United States may have signed, ratified, and implemented, should determine the meaning of domestic laws and even the U.S. Constitution. This view is known as internationalism and, in its more extreme forms that incorporate foreign law, transnationalism. Neither, whatever its merits, is availing in this case. A careful analysis of the treaties and, crucially, the United States obligations under them refutes the claim that international law precludes U.S. states from sentencing juvenile offenders to life without parole.

19

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Punishment Affirmative JUVENILE TRANSFERS DO NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW
1. THE CRC HAS NO BINDING FORCE WITHOUT U.S. RATIFICATION Charles D. Stimson, Senior Legal Fellow and Andrew M. Grossman, Senior Legal Policy Analyst in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, November 2, 2009, Adult Time for Adult Crime: America Has No Global Duty to Ban Juvenile Life Sentences, The Heritage Foundation, http://blog.heritage.org/?p=18897, ACC. 12-11-2010 The second error is the assertion that Article 18 requires signatory nations to change their laws to comply with unratified treaties. Quite the opposite: Article 18 does not create an obligation to undertake specific actions, such as passing new laws, but only an obligation to refrain from undertaking certain types of actions. A nation is therefore under no obligation to change its laws to match a treatys terms upon becoming a signatory; it merely must refrain from changes that would prevent eventual implementation of the treaty if it were ratified. Thus, having signed but not ratified the CRC does not oblige the United States to change its laws to prohibit life-without-parole sentences for juvenile offenders. Absent ratification, Congress lacks the power to accomplish such an end as against the states. 2. LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE SENTENCES ARE ONLY ALLOWED IN MURDER CASES The Christian Science Monitor Editorial Board, May 18, 2010, Supreme Court moves in the right direction on juvenile sentence, http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2010/0518/Supreme-Court-movesin-the-right-direction-on-juvenile-sentence, The Christian Science Monitor, ACC. 12-8-2010 The Supreme Court took a welcome step Monday when it banned life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted of crimes short of murder. The 5-to-4 ruling acknowledges the growing scientific and legal recognition that youths are not simply small adults, and therefore should not be treated like adults under the law. The ruling also gives juvenile offenders with such a harsh sentence incentive for reform and thus hope for freedom during their lifetimes. This has a larger and constructive implication for states: They should focus more on rehabilitation even as budgets push them to cut such efforts and despite a trend to prosecute more juvenile offenders in adult court. 3. THE ICCPR DOES NOT PREVENT JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE Charles D. Stimson, Senior Legal Fellow and Andrew M. Grossman, Senior Legal Policy Analyst in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, November 2, 2009, Adult Time for Adult Crime: America Has No Global Duty to Ban Juvenile Life Sentences, The Heritage Foundation, http://blog.heritage.org/?p=18897, ACC. 12-11-2010 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Does Not Prohibit Juvenile Life Without Parole in the U.S. A second international treaty that some argue forbids sentencing juveniles to life without parole is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the primary human rights treaty for the protection of civil and political rights, which, unlike the CRC, was ratified by the United States in 1992. Specifically, activists claim that such sentences are a prohibited form of punishment for juveniles under Articles 7, 10, and 14 of the treaty. This, too, is unavailing. 4. JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IS NOT BARRED BY THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE Charles D. Stimson, Senior Legal Fellow and Andrew M. Grossman, Senior Legal Policy Analyst in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, November 2, 2009, Adult Time for Adult Crime: America Has No Global Duty to Ban Juvenile Life Sentences, The Heritage Foundation, http://blog.heritage.org/?p=18897, ACC. 12-11-2010 The Convention Against Torture Does Not Prohibit Juvenile Life Without Parole in the U.S. Some argue that the sentencing of juveniles to life without parole violates the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), which the United States ratified in 1994. Article 16 of the CAT requires that a party to the treaty shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torturewhen such acts are committed bya public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

20

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Punishment Affirmative INTERNATIONAL LAW COMPLIANCE IS WEAK NOW
1. U.S. DRONE STRIKES VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW Agence France Presse (Staff Writer), October 21, 2010, US drone strikes violate international law: expert, http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_drone_strikes_violate_international_law_expert_999.html, ACC. 12-06-2010 The US programme of drone strikes targeting Islamist militants in Pakistan, Yemen and other countries violates international law and should be halted, a legal expert warned Thursday. Mary Ellen O'Connell, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, told a debate at a leading London think-tank that the pursuit of Al-Qaeda and Taliban extremists should be a law enforcement issue, not a military one. "The strongest conclusion is that there is no legal right to resort to drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere where the US is not involved in armed conflict," she told the respected Chatham House centre. 2. THE U.S. VIOLATES THE ICCPR ON MULTIPLE LEVELS ACLU, June 20, 2006, Dimming the Beacon of Freedom U.S. Violations of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights - Executive Summary, http://www.aclu.org/human-rights-womens-rights/dimming-beaconfreedom-us-violations-international-covenant-civil-politic, ACC. 12-06-2010 To avoid blatant violations of the Covenant by the U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantnamo Bay and secret detention facilities outside the U.S., the government continues to maintain that the ICCPR does not apply to its actions outside the United States. The position is consistent with a disturbing trend that threatens to undermine the rule of law in America - the assumption that the Executive has unchecked authority to ignore the law. To regain its position as a beacon of freedom throughout the world, the United States must honor and protect the fundamental freedoms and rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and the ICCPR. 3. OUR ICCPR OBLIGATIONS HAVE BEEN RENDERED MEANINGLESS BY RESERVATIONS ACLU, June 20, 2006, Dimming the Beacon of Freedom U.S. Violations of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights - Executive Summary, http://www.aclu.org/human-rights-womens-rights/dimming-beaconfreedom-us-violations-international-covenant-civil-politic, ACC. 12-06-2010 Contrary to this Committee's mandates, the U.S. government, in its latest report, refuses to reconsider in whole or in part any of its reservations, understandings and declarations to the Covenant. The U.S. government's failure to reconsider its positions together with the grossly inadequate domestic implementation of the ICCPR renders significant protections therein meaningless. 4. JUVENILE DEATH PENALTY GREATLY UNDERMINES INTERNATIONAL LAW Richard C. Dieter, Executive Director, Death Penalty Information Center, April 29, 2008, The Death Penalty and Human Rights: U.S. Death Penalty and International Law, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/Oxfordpaper.pdf, ACC. 12-06-2010, p. np The international opposition to such executions is even more pronounced than that regarding the mentally retarded. The practice of executing those who were under 18 at the time of their crime is directly prohibited by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), by the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the American Convention on Human Rights. So broad is the acceptance of this ban that it is widely recognized as a peremptory norm of customary international law,50 i.e., a principle so universally accepted that it precludes reservations.

21

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Sample Negative Case
THESIS: Contrary to popular belief, the rate of serious juvenile crimes has dramatically decreased in recent years. Nonetheless, a fearful public cries out for harsher punishment. In response, states have increased the frequency of juveniles being transferred to adult courts and prisons. This is counter-productive, undermines the ethical foundation of the juvenile justice system and compounds racial inequality The word juvenile precedes justice system for a reason. Children under the age of 18 are not able to fully comprehend the consequences of their actions. Instead of locking them up and throwing away the key like the Affirmative suggests, I must negate the resolution. Juveniles charged with violent felonies ought NOT be treated as adults in the criminal justice system. My value in todays debate is equality. While violent crimes are wrong in every sense, how we address them matters ethically. If minorities are disproportionately sent to adult prisons, then the HOW of it all is ethically bankrupt. The side that best addresses serious juvenile crime ethically should win the debate. WE HAVE A COLLECTIVE OBLIGATION TO AFFIRM EQUALITY AS A DUTY OF JUSTICE Edward N. Zalta, Principle Editor, June 27, 2007, Equality, The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ACC. 1212-2010 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/ The responsibility people have to treat individuals and groups they affect in a morally appropriate and, in particular, even-handed way has hence a certain priority over their moral duty to turn circumstances into just ones through some kind of equalization. Establishing justice of circumstances (ubiquitously and simultaneously) is beyond any given individual's capacities. Hence one has to rely on collective actions. In order to meet this moral duty, a basic order guaranteeing just circumstances must be justly created. OBSERVATION ONE: TRANSFERRING JUVENILES TO THE ADULT SYSTEM IS INEFFECTIVE AND UNETHICAL A. VIOLENT JUVENILE CRIME RATES ARE DECREASING NOW Jon R. Sorensen, PhD, professor of justice studies at Prairie View A&M University, September 2008, Juvenile Inmates in an Adult Prison System: Rates of Disciplinary Misconduct and Violence, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35:9, p. 1187 Diverging from declining adult rates, the crime rate for youth, particularly for violent crimes, continued to rise throughout the early 1990s. For example, although the rate of murder committed by persons ages 25 and older declined by 25% from 1985 to 1994, the homicide rate among 18- to 24-year-olds increased 61%, and among 14- to 17-yearolds, it increased 172%. It is important to note that the juvenile crime rate, particularly the violent crime rate, has declined in recent years, returning to the pre-crime wave rate of the mid-1980s. B. CLAIMS OF INCREASING YOUTH VIOLENCE ARE MEDIA HYPE Missy Webb, Yahoo Staff Writer, June 7, 2007, Criminal Justice: Should Juveniles Be Treated as Adults?, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/267194/criminal_justice_should_juveniles_be.html, Associated Content, ACC. 12-8-2010 There is no easy solution to the problems and violence that are being created by today's youth. Much of the recent legislative action taken against juvenile crime is a reaction to the public opinion that is fueled mainly by a large amount of (sometimes disproportionate) media coverage. Youths who offend at a younger age are more likely to become adult career criminals than those individuals who commit their first act during adolescence (or later).

22

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Sample Negative Case
C. THE CHOICE BETWEEN THE JUVENILE AND ADULT SYSTEMS IS SIMPLE: GIVE UP OR EMBRACE AN OBLIGATION UNIQUE TO JUVENILES TOARD REHABILITATION Julie Swaney, JD, Washington College of Law, Winter, 2009, Juveniles Locked Up for Life for Non-Homicides: Cruel & Unusual or an Appropriate Punishment?, Criminal Law Brief, 5 Crim. L. Brief 111, Lexis Nexis, The four panelists, moderated by WCL Criminal Law Professor Mary Fan, engaged in a lively debate about juvenile sentencing. Arguing for the Petitioners' side were Jody Kent, National Coordinator of the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, and Vincent Southerland, Associate Counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. Ms. Kent asserted that juveniles have scientifically been found to have less reasoning and moral aptitude than adults. Therefore, she argued, they are not as culpable for the crimes they commit. Mr. Southerland maintained that young people make bad choices all the time, but that there is still the opportunity to rehabilitate that society's purpose for sentencing juveniles is different. As opposed to adult prison sentences, in which the primary goals are to deter crime and punish offenders, the main objective of the juvenile criminal justice system is to rehabilitate. D. TRANSFERS UNDERMINE THE ETHICAL FOUNDATION OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM Donna M. Bishop, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, 2009, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, in Reforming Juvenile Justice, J. Junger-Tas and F. Dnkel (eds.), p. 87 One solution, which was used from the start, was to transfer these problem cases to the criminal court. While transfer was inconsistent with the juvenile courts foundational principles, it was politically expedient. So, for example, we find that only 1 year after the juvenile court was established in Chicago, Judge Tuthill quietly and without fanfare referred 37 boys to the grand jury as not fit subjects for juvenile court. Other juvenile courts quickly followed suit. By relinquishing authority over a few, judges attempted to placate the public and preserve the juvenile courts diversionary and rehabilitative commitments to the vast majority of young offenders. E. JUVENILE DETENTION ALTERNATIVES CREATE MASSIVE SAVINGS AND BENEFITS Christina Gaudio, managing editor of notes and comments for Family Court Review at Hofstra University School of Law, January, 2010, A Call to Congress to Give Back the Future, Family Court Review, 48 Fam. Ct. Rev. 212 Detention alternative initiatives, however, deter offenders from committing future crimes, protect public safety and save money. For example, detaining a youth for a day in New York City costs fifteen times more than sending a youth to a detention alternative program. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy found that for every dollar spent on county juvenile detention systems, there was only $ 1.98 of "benefits" in terms of reduced crime and costs of crime to taxpayers. Diversion and mentoring programs on the other hand, produced $ 3.36 of benefits for every dollar spent, aggression replacement training produced $ 10.00 of benefits, and multi-systemic therapy produced $ 13.00 of benefits. OBSERVATION TWO: JUVENILE TRANSFERS ARE STEPPED IN RACISM A. MINORITY JUVENILES RECEIVE DISPROPORTIONATELY HARSHER PENALTIES Kareem L. Jordan, University of North Florida, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, and Tina L. Freiburger, University of WisconsinMilwaukee, 2010, Examining the Impact of Race and Ethnicity on the Sentencing of Juveniles in the Adult Court, Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21:2 pp. 194-195 Our purpose in this research was to examine the role of race and ethnicity on the sentencing outcomes of juveniles who are convicted in adult court. Our findings suggest that there is some sentencing bias. Specifically, we found that Black youth are more likely to be sentenced to both prison and jail (rather than probation), as compared to White youth. We also found that Hispanic youth are more likely to be sentenced to prison (as compared to jail) than White youth. These findings are consistent with much of the existing research regarding the sentencing of adults. Our results add to the body of literature that suggests that racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to receive more severe sentences, regardless of whether the offenders are adults or juveniles.

23

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Sample Negative Case
B. BLACK AND HISPANIC OFFENDERS ARE TREATED MORE HARSHLY Kareem L. Jordan, University of North Florida, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, and Tina L. Freiburger, University of WisconsinMilwaukee, 2010, Examining the Impact of Race and Ethnicity on the Sentencing of Juveniles in the Adult Court, Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21:2 p. 186 Findings of whether Black or Hispanic defendants are treated harsher are mixed. Some research has found that Hispanics are treated the most harshly, with Blacks and Whites being treated less harshly than Hispanics, and Blacks being treated more harshly than Whites. Other research has found that Blacks are actually treated more harshly than Hispanics and Whites. C. BLACK YOUTHS FACE DOUBLE DISCRIMINATION WITH HIGHER TRANSFER RATES AND HARSHER SENTENCES IN ADULT COURTS Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 The disproportionate number of transfer cases involving Black youth is even more upsetting when considered in conjunction with the fact that Black youth often receive harsher sentences than their White counterparts. In states such as California and Pennsylvania, Black youth are more than 20 times as likely to receive life without parole sentences when compared to White youth. The overrepresentation of Black youth in the criminal justice system is troubling. As mentioned above, Black youth are more likely to be waived to adult court for their offenses and often receive much harsher sentences than their counterparts. The racial imbalance is but one example of the arbitrary nature of transferring and sentencing children as adults. D. THE REFUSAL OF RACISM IS THE PRECONDITION FOR ALL FORMS OF MORALITY Albert Memmi, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Paris, 1997, Racism, p. 165 Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. But no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. "Recall," says the Bible, "that you were once a stranger in Egypt," which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming once again someday. It is an ethical and a practical appeal -- indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality. E. WE SHOULD REJECT EVERY INSTANCE OF RACISM Joseph Barndt, Minister, 1991, Dismantling Racism, pp. 155-156. To study racism is to study walls. We have looked at barriers and fences, restraints and limitations, ghettos and prisons. The prison of racism confines us all, people of color and white people alike. It shackles the victimizer as well as the victim. The walls forcibly keep people of color and white people separate from each other; in our separate prisons we are all prevented from achieving the human potential that God intends for us. The limitations imposed on people of color by poverty, subservience, and powerlessness are cruel, inhuman, and unjust; the effects of uncontrolled power, privilege, and greed, which are the marks of our white prison, will inevitably destroy us as well. But we have also seen that the walls of racism can be dismantled. We are not condemned to an inexorable fate, but are offered the vision and the possibility of freedom. Brick by brick, stone by stone, the prison of individual, institutional, and cultural racism can be destroyed. You and I are urgently called to join the efforts of those who know it is time to tear down once and for all, the walls of racism.

24

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Sample Negative GET TOUGH ON JUVENILES IS A POOR STRATEGY
1. THE AFFIRMATIVES GET TOUGH STRATEGY RELIES ON POOR STEREOTYPES Donna M. Bishop, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, 2009, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, in Reforming Juvenile Justice, J. Junger-Tas and F. Dnkel (eds.), p. 89 What ensued was a moral panic that politicians used to their advantage. Electoral politics began to revolve around efforts to outdo ones opponents in the race to get tough on juvenile crime. The underlying assumptions about youth that had animated the juvenile court movement were sharply challenged. Conceptions of juvenile offenders as adult-like, incipient career criminals legitimized a different set of penal responses. For young offenders who did not even approach worst cases, legislators touted the utility of criminal punishment both as a deterrent and as a means of protecting a fearful public. What followed was an unprecedented series of transfer reforms. 2. GET TOUGH STRATEGIES FOR JUVENILES UNDERMINE TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION Missy Webb, Yahoo Staff Writer, June 7, 2007, Criminal Justice: Should Juveniles Be Treated as Adults?, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/267194/criminal_justice_should_juveniles_be.html, Associated Content, ACC. 12-8-2010 Based on the view that "children are different" or "children cannot have criminal intent or responsibility", this feeling has dramatically decreased over the past few years. As a result, a "get tough" approach is being incorporated in the juvenile system. Currently there is a hypothesis that by holding juveniles responsible for the behavior, there will be a more beneficial outcome than by just "treating" them. This also sends the message that if juveniles commit adult crimes, then they will be treated as adults. However, the hypothesis for this idea has yet to be proven. 3. THE COUNTRY HAS EMBRACED A GET TOUGH STANCE ON JUVENILE CRIME Donna M. Bishop, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, 2009, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, in Reforming Juvenile Justice, J. Junger-Tas and F. Dnkel (eds.), p. 91 In sum, over the past two decades, the United States has embraced get tough policies that expand the reach and bite of transfer laws and increase the punitive powers of juvenile courts. Ideological, jurisdictional, and procedural transformations have promoted the substantive and procedural convergence of the juvenile and adult systems. This convergence has been supported by a loss of confidence in rehabilitation and, more important, by challenges to the basic ideas of youthful immaturity and malleability that provided the critical jurisprudential underpinnings of the juvenile court. 4. TRANSFERS UNIQUELY FOSTER A PERCEPTION OF DISTORTED DANGER Kareem L. Jordan, University of North Florida, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, and Tina L. Freiburger, University of WisconsinMilwaukee, 2010, Examining the Impact of Race and Ethnicity on the Sentencing of Juveniles in the Adult Court, Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21:2 p. 188 Few articles have specifically examined the experiences of juveniles in the adult court. Kurlychek and Johnson (2004) compared the sentencing of juveniles in the adult court to the sentences of young adults sentenced in the adult court. Their analysis found that juvenile offenders were treated more harshly than young adult offenders (age 18-20) in the adult court. They suggested that being transferred to adult court resulted in judges viewing these juvenile offenders as more dangerous and blameworthy. 5. GET TOUGH ADVOCATES OVERESTIMATE JUVENILE COGNITIVE MATURITY Donna M. Bishop, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, 2009, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, in Reforming Juvenile Justice, J. Junger-Tas and F. Dnkel (eds.), p. 92 Legislators and the general public tend to greatly overestimate adolescents cognitive maturity. Although laboratory research indicates that by about the age of 14 or 15 adolescents know right from wrong and have the ability to process information and to make decisions that is roughly equal to that of adults, it does not follow that youths should be held to adult standards of criminal responsibility. Laboratory research findings can be misleading. All subjects have the benefit of the same information, and the research setting is most often relaxed, unhurried, quiet, and free of distractions.

25

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Sample Negative JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS BETTER THAN THE ADULT SYSTEM
1. THE BEST RESEARCH SUPPORTS JUVENILE JUSTICE OVER ADULT TRANSFERS Donna M. Bishop, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, 2009, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, in Reforming Juvenile Justice, J. Junger-Tas and F. Dnkel (eds.), p. 92 Despite the punitive policy reforms of the last two decades, I argue that the substantive rationale for the juvenile court is stronger today than ever before. We no longer need to rely on a vague mathematics of maturity grounded in politics and popular opinion to justify a separate system of juvenile justice. Advances in neuroscience, developmental psychology, and criminological research provide a strong rationale for a juvenile justice system that is resistant to threats of encroachment by the criminal justice system. 2. THE ADULT SYSTEM IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE NEEDS OF JUVENILES ON MANY LEVELS Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 There are numerous ways in which the adult criminal justice system is incompatible with the needs of young children. Adult criminal courtrooms are ill-equipped to handle these young defendants; these children are too young to actively participate in proceedings and to assist in their own defense; criminal judges and public defenders often have little experience dealing with young offenders; a childs physical appearance often changes drastically between the time of the offense and the time of trial as the child goes through puberty; and the simple fact of conviction in adult court can subject the child to a permanent loss of privacy, rights, and privileges, including permanent loss of the right to vote or to hold certain jobs. 3. JUVENILE COURTS ARE COMPARATIVELY BETTER THAN THE ADULT SYSTEM David L. Myers, Ph.D., Department of Criminology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, April 2003, Adult Crime, Adult Time: Punishing Violent Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1:2, p. 174. In contrast to the conventional juvenile courts emphasis on child saving and serving the best interests of children, the get-tough philosophy, which originated in the adult criminal justice system during the 1970s, now extends into the juvenile system as well. A central issue is the transfer or waiver1 of juveniles to adult court, which often is described as a move toward criminalizing delinquent behavior. 4. THE JUVENILE SYSTEM SUCCEEDS WHERE THE ADULT SYSTEM FAILS ON MULTIPLE LEVELS Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 In contrast to the failures of the adult criminal justice system when it comes to managing young offenders, the juvenile justice system is capable of handling the most serious offenses, of holding youths accountable for their actions, and at helping youth become productive members of society. The long-term benefits of returning children to the juvenile justice system has financial benefits for taxpayers as well. One researcher found a $3 savings benefit for the correctional and judicial systems for every $1 spent on juvenile justice. The report profiles both juvenile programs that work and several individuals who turned their lives around as a result of juvenile programs.

26

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Sample Negative JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS BETTER THAN THE ADULT SYSTEM
1. THE JUVENILE SYSTEM IS BETTER BECAUSE IS FOSTERS REHABILITATION AND SOCIAL REINTEGRATION Donna M. Bishop, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, 2009, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, in Reforming Juvenile Justice, J. Junger-Tas and F. Dnkel (eds.), p. 100 In sum, the factors contributing to the criminogenic effects of transfer are complex and include the multiple negative effects of incarceration in the adult system (e.g., exposure to negative shaming, opportunities for criminal socialization, modeling of violence) and the stigmatization and opportunity blockage that flow from a record of criminal conviction. Compared with the criminal justice system, the juvenile system is more reintegrative in practice and effect. 2. THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM CANNOT MEET THE NEEDS OF CHILD OFFENDERS Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 The political appeal of transferring children to adult court and subjecting them to hard time for adult crimes may be understandable, but the practice is problematic at numerous levels. The adult criminal justice system is designed for adults, and is ill-equipped to meet the special needs presented by young child offenders. Simply labeling young children as adults does not render them appropriate for this system. 3. JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS FOSTER REHABILITATION, NOT CAREER CRIMINALS Erin Quinn, Staff Writer, October 9, 2010, Children who kill pose dilemma for justice system, Gannett News Service, Lexis Nexis, Experts say the most effective rehabilitation comes in a juvenile detention center where impressionable children are counseled in a positive environment with one-on-one attention from adult role models. In adult prison, the emphasis is on punishment. More vocational and academic programs have been added, but not every young adult prisoner takes advantage of them. William Bernet, professor of forensic psychiatry at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, said grouping teenagers with hardened convicts just doesn't make sense. "They pick up more criminal habits. They identify with the criminal way of life." 4. OFFENDERS RECEIVE BETTER TREATMENT SERVICES IN THE JUVENILE SYSTEM Donna M. Bishop, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, 2009, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, in Reforming Juvenile Justice, J. Junger-Tas and F. Dnkel (eds.), p. 99 All three studies reported a stronger treatment orientation in juvenile institutions compared to adult ones. Programs in juvenile institutions addressed mental health needs, learning deficits, and social skills deficits, and were designed to facilitate adolescent development (social competencies, prosocial identity, decision-making, planning). According to the MacArthur research group, in terms of youths ratings of fairness, counseling and therapeutic services, educational and job training services, and program structure, adult correctional facilities fared significantly worse than juvenile ones.

27

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Sample Negative TRANSFERRING JUVENILES FOSTERS RACISM & ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION
1. BLACK JUVENILES ARE TRANSFERRED AT OVER 50% HIGHER THAN WHITE OFFENDERS Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 Turning to the racial breakdowns of transferred youths, we find that over the last 20 years, more than 50% of the young children judicially transferred to adult court for person offenses were Black (Figure 8). This number is astonishing when compared to the percentage of Blacks in the United States (13%) (Figure 9). The imbalance becomes even more significant when we consider the limitations of the data. Because of data collection limitations, Hispanic youth are classified as White, and thereby inflate the relative proportion of White children who have been transferred. Thus, the ratio of young Black children transferred to that of White children is certainly larger than what the pie chart displays. 2. HISPANICS ARE UNIQUELY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN ADULT COURTS Kareem L. Jordan, University of North Florida, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, and Tina L. Freiburger, University of WisconsinMilwaukee, 2010, Examining the Impact of Race and Ethnicity on the Sentencing of Juveniles in the Adult Court, Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21:2 p. 186 Recent research has further recognized the importance of considering the treatment of Hispanic defendants separately from that of White and Black defendants. Though the majority of this research has found that White defendants are sentenced more leniently than Black and Hispanic defendants, some has failed to find a difference between the treatment of Whites and Hispanics. This is especially prevalent when jurisdictions are examined in the Southwest, where Hispanic populations are higher. 3. BLACK AND HISPANIC DEFENDENTS ARE LESS LIKELY TO RECEIVE PROBATION Kareem L. Jordan, University of North Florida, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, and Tina L. Freiburger, University of WisconsinMilwaukee, 2010, Examining the Impact of Race and Ethnicity on the Sentencing of Juveniles in the Adult Court, Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21:2 pp. 187-188 Holleran and Spohn (2004) also examined the effect of race and ethnicity, gender, and age interactions in the decision to sentence a defendant to probation, jail, or prison. Their study found that White defendants were more likely than Hispanic defendants to receive a sentence to probation instead of jail or prison. Black defendants, on the other hand, were more likely than Hispanics to receive jail instead of probation and were more likely to receive prison over probation. 4. OVER HALF OF ALL JUVENILES SENT TO ADULT COURTS ARE BLACK Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 Particularly troubling is the fact that these are not necessarily headline-worthy cases: many of these young children are being treated as adults for relatively minor offenses. There are almost as many youth treated as adults for property crimes as for crimes against persons. The statistics analyzed in this report demonstrate the extreme arbitrariness, unpredictability, and racial disparities in determinations about when and whether a young child will be treated as an adult. Our research shows that more than 50% of young children waived to adult court for person crimes were Black.

28

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Sample Negative TRANSFERRING JUVENILES FOSTERS RACISM & ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION
1. RACISM HAS SHIFTED TO MORE SUBTLE FORMS AND MUST BE UNCOVERED Margaret C. Stevenson, University of Evansville and Bette L. Bottoms, University of Illinois at Chicago, 2009, Race Shapes Perceptions of Juvenile Offenders in Criminal Court, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(7), pp. 1661-1662. Until our countrys recent history, overtly racist attitudes and discriminatory treatment were societal norms. Of course, such old-fashioned racism could certainly explain anti-Black judgments in certain cases. Most Whites attitudes toward Blacks today are quite different from those held during the time of the Civil War, or even 50 years ago. Yet, lingering negative attitudes and anti-Black stereotypes continue to influence behavior and even jurors decisions in trials. Researchers have identified and labeled several similar new forms of subtle racism: modern racism, symbolic racism, and aversive racism. For example, according to the theory of aversive racism, it is no longer socially acceptable to appear outwardly racist. 2. BLACK MEN AND YOUTH ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY INCARECERATED Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 The racial discrepancies between the number of young children tried as adults are even more problematic when coupled with the fact that young, Black men are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system as a whole. The immense number of young, Black men incarcerated in America has long been documented. As with the adult criminal system, Black youth are over represented in the juvenile justice system when compared to national population data, meaning that the starting point even before transfer is uneven. For instance, in 2002, a disproportionate number of juvenile delinquency cases involved Black youth (29%) compared to their percentage of the population (16%). 3. ADULT SENTENCING IS RACIST AND FAVORS PRISON FOR MINORITIES Kareem L. Jordan, University of North Florida, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, and Tina L. Freiburger, University of WisconsinMilwaukee, 2010, Examining the Impact of Race and Ethnicity on the Sentencing of Juveniles in the Adult Court, Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21:2 p. 195 We also found that the interaction of race and other factors further influence sentencing decisions. It is interesting that having prior contact with the juvenile justice system and being Black increased the likelihood of receiving prison versus jail, and it decreased the likelihood of the same for Whites. These opposite findings could mean that judges view prior record differently for these racial groups, with prior record representing more dangerousness for Blacks (i.e., greater chance of prison) but not for Whites (i.e., lower chance of prison). 4. IDEOLOGICAL EXCLUSION REPLICATES RACIALIZED PHYSICAL EXCLUSION Pinar Batur Ph.D., Associate Professor of Sociology, and Director of Urban Studies, Vassar, 2007, Heart of Violence: Global Racism, War, and Genocide, Handbooks of the Sociology of Racial and Ethnic Relations, p. 449 Exclusion in physical space is only matched by exclusion in the imagination, and racialized exclusion has an internal logic leading to the annihilation of the excluded. Annihilation, in this sense, is not only designed to maintain the terms of racial inequality, both ideologically and physically, but is institutionalized with the vocabulary of selfprotection. Even though the terms of exclusion are never complete, genocide is the definitive point in the exclusionary racial ideology, and such is the logic of the outcome of the exclusionary process, that it can conclude only in ultimate domination. War and genocide take place with compliant efficiency to serve the global racist ideology with dizzying frequency. The 21st century opened up with genocide, in Darfur.

29

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com

30

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Sample Negative JUVENILE TRANSFERS UNDERMINE INTERNATIONAL LAW
1. JUVENILE TRANSFERS VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND UNDERMINES THE U.S. IMAGE Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 Thus, we see a global consensus that children should not be held to the same standards of criminal responsibility as adults. International law also recognizes that children are entitled to special protection and treatment. Such beliefs translate into policies in almost every country that do not allow for the trial and harsh sentencing of pre-adolescent children, regardless of their offense. American policies that allow very young children to be tried and sentenced as adults, with sentences up to and including life without possibility of parole, set the United States apart from its peer countriesindeed, from all countriesin ways that are deeply troubling. 2. STRONG INTERNATIONAL LAW IS ESSENTIAL FOR HUMAN SURVIVAL Lori Fisler Damrosch, Professor of Law, Columbia, and Rein Mullerson, Professor of International Law, Kings, 1995, Beyond Confrontation, International Law for the Post Cold War Era, pp. 2-3 The intertwining of the economic life of diverse countries today is even greater than was the interdependence of different regions within the same state only half a century ago. Order and predictability of the behavior of actors on the international scene can be achieved first of all with the aid of social norms, among which international law occupies an important place. A second reason for the growth of the role of international law is inextricably connected with the first. The threat of a thermonuclear catastrophe, universal ecological crisis, and acute economic problems in developing countries are of global concern and endanger the very existence of humanity. Resolution of these problems demands coordinated efforts of all states and peoples, which would be impossible to achieve without the aid of international norms, procedures, and institutions. 3. THE U.S. VIOLATES MULTIPLE TREATIES WITH JUVENILE SENTENCING Evelyn Aero, LL.B. Makerere Univ., Kampala, Et. al., November/December 2010, The United States of America: Juvenile Life without Parole, ACC. 10-29-10, http://indylaw.indiana.edu/humanrights/shadowreports/USA% 20Juvenile %20Life%20Without%20Parole.pdf, The U.S. is in breach of international law for its continued practice of JLWOP. The U.S. is bound by the ICCPR, CAT, CERD, and CRC. The Human Rights Committee has recognized JLWOP as a violation of Article 24. The U.S. is obligated to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the ICCPR. The ICCPR demands, any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy. The Human Rights Committee has found the numerous incidences of juveniles sentenced to LWOP exceed the U.S. exceptional circumstances reservation for treating juveniles as adults. In addition, JWLOP is contrary to the object and purpose of human rights treaties to which the U.S. is either a party or signatory. 4. PUNISHING YOUNG CHILDREN IN ADULT COURTS VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 Treating children as adults in the criminal justice system is clearly a problem that must be addressed in each of the 50 states, but even more so, it is a problem of international proportion. In the eyes of the world, the United States stands nearly alone in its harsh treatment of young children. Much as there was a global consensus against sentencing juveniles to death highlighted during the Supreme Courts deliberations in Roper v. Simmons case, there currently exists a global consensus against trying and sentencing children as

31

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com

adults. Punishing young children violates international norms of human rights and juvenile justice, and yet the United States continues to lead the world in both policies and practices aimed at treating young children as adults.

32

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Sample Negative JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW
1. JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW Donna M. Bishop, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, 2009, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, in Reforming Juvenile Justice, J. Junger-Tas and F. Dnkel (eds.), p. 91 And today, in contravention of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, 3 at least 2,225 individuals are serving sentences of life without possibility of parole for offenses they committed as juveniles. 4 Only three other countries (none in Europe) permit such sentences, and they have been imposed in only about a dozen cases. On the world stage, the USA stands alone by virtue of the harshness with which it responds to its juvenile offenders. 2. ONLY THE U.S. PRACTICES LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE FOR JUVENILES Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 Most significantly, life without parole for juveniles is a sentence available only in the United States. Israel, for a long time the only other country that permitted juvenile life without parole sentences, recently modified the sanction so that periodic parole reviews are held. But even sentences for a term of years are much shorter in other countries when juveniles are involved. Even if the sentences that would be applied to adults are long, there are special sentences tailored for any juveniles convicted under these laws. 3. LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE FOR JUVENILES VIOLATES THE ICCPR Allyssa D. Wheaton-Rodriguez, Staff Writer, Fall, 2001, The United States' choice to violate international law by allowing the juvenile death penalty, Houston Journal of International Law, ACC. 12-6-10, http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/83046928.html, The ICCPR has a similar purpose--to protect the rights of citizens within a nation's own boundaries, including the right to life for juvenile criminal offenders. The United States' reservation to the ICCPR, specifically Article 6, contradicts this purpose by attempting to forego the protection of juvenile criminal offenders under the guise of allowing states to uphold existing laws. Using this logic, the United Nations Human Rights Committee ("Human Rights Committee") concluded that, under the Vienna Convention, the United States' reservation to Article 6 is invalid because it contradicts the object and purpose of the ICCPR. 4. NO OTHER COUNTRY IMPRISONS YOUTH MORE THAN THE UNITED STATES Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 Nearly all nations in the world follow both the spirit and letter of these international instruments. As a result, most countriesincluding those Western nations most similar to the United Statesrepudiate the practice of trying young children as adults and giving them long sentences. Our research has yielded no findings of any young children elsewhere in the world who are imprisoned for as long as some children in the United States.

33

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Sample Negative TRANSFERRING JUVENILES FOSTERS RECIDIVISM
1. TRANSFERS TO ADULT PRISONS CREATES CAREER CRIMINALS Jon R. Sorensen, PhD, professor of justice studies at Prairie View A&M University, September 2008, Juvenile Inmates in an Adult Prison System: Rates of Disciplinary Misconduct and Violence, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35:9, p. 1187 The expanded presence of juveniles in adult correctional institutions is not without controversy. Some scholars have noted that the incarceration of juveniles in adult facilities may increase the potential for creating career criminals among these youth. Criminal trajectories may be encouraged by factors that are common to adult correctional facilities, such as association with hardened adult criminals and lack of rehabilitative programming. 2. JUVENILE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES REDUCE CHANCES OF RECIDIVISM The Christian Science Monitor Editorial Board, May 18, 2010, Supreme Court moves in the right direction on juvenile sentence, http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2010/0518/Supreme-Court-movesin-the-right-direction-on-juvenile-sentence, The Christian Science Monitor, ACC. 12-8-2010 Studies show that teen criminals in community-based programs with caring adults who help train and reform them have a lower rate of returning to crime and also cost taxpayers less than those incarcerated in traditional institutions. This decision comes five years after the high court overturned the death penalty for those under 18, ruling that immaturity made them less culpable than adults for similar crimes. 3. STUDIES SHOW JUVENILES TRANSFERS CAUSE RECIDIVISM AND REDUCE PUBLIC SAFETY Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 States should amend laws to ensure pre-adolescent children remain in the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system. These children are fundamentally different from adults, as well as from older juveniles. In nearly every other situation, children are treated differently than adults, yet in the eyes of the criminal law, some children are adults. This practice, however, contradicts scientific research, ignores the strength of the juvenile justice system, flouts international consensus, and is inconsistent with public safety goals. Studies show that children tried as adults have an increased likelihood of recidivism. Research has also shown that transferring children to adult court does not reduce juvenile crime or increase public safety. 4. TRANSFERS VICTIMIZE OFFENDERS AND REDUCES SERVICES, WHICH CAUSES MORE RECIDIVISM David L. Myers, Ph.D., Department of Criminology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, April 2003, Adult Crime, Adult Time: Punishing Violent Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1:2, p. 189. However, studies also suggest that as compared to similar youth in juvenile institutions, young offenders in adult prisons experience greater victimization by both inmates and staff, exhibit higher suicide rates, and receive inferior treatment services. In addition, a number of scholars have discussed the developmental differences between juveniles and adults and have questioned the ability of the adult criminal system to deal with immature and disadvantaged adolescents. When these findings and arguments are considered along with the previously mentioned findings of greater recidivism among transferred youth, there is reason for caution in simply adopting an adult crime, adult time approach.

34

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Sample Negative TRANSFERRING JUVENILES FOSTERS RECIDIVISM
1. JUVENILE TRANSFERS HAVE A HIGH RATE OF RECIDIVISM Donna M. Bishop, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, 2009, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, in Reforming Juvenile Justice, J. Junger-Tas and F. Dnkel (eds.), p. 97 Briefly stated, the research shows that young people who are transferred to criminal court for prosecution and punishment as adults are more likely to re-offend than equivalent young offenders who are processed in the juvenile court system. Transferred offenders re-offend more quickly, at higher rates, and commit more serious crimes than their counterparts who are retained in the juvenile system. These ill effects are especially pronounced among violent offenders and among first offenders (those most often targeted by automatic transfer laws). 2. TRYING JUVENILES IN ADULT COURT INCREASES RECIDIVISM Missy Webb, Yahoo Staff Writer, June 7, 2007, Criminal Justice: Should Juveniles Be Treated as Adults?, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/267194/criminal_justice_should_juveniles_be.html, Associated Content, ACC. 12-8-2010 Studies show that trying juveniles in adult court may actually result in a higher re-offender rate. This is because a large number of the juveniles sent through adult court are returned to the community shortly after conviction for several reasons. First of all most of them are first time offenders, and often commit an offense of minor nature. Statistics also show that there is a higher probability of juvenile court taking some form of action than adult criminal court. 3. JUVENILE TRANSFERS LEAD TO HIGHER RECIDIVISM RATES David L. Myers, Ph.D., Department of Criminology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, April 2003, Adult Crime, Adult Time: Punishing Violent Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1:2, p. 189. Although these offenders may (or may not) undergo strict parole supervision, a central issue is whether the somewhat short-term incapacitative benefit achieved through juvenile transfer is offset by further criminal behavior once waived youth are released from confinement. In fact, recent research shows this to be the case as various studies have found greater, more serious, and faster recidivism on the part of waived youth as compared to similar offenders retained in the juvenile system 4. SENTENCING JUVENILES TO ADULT PRISONS INCREASES CRIME AND VIOLENCE Barbara Pytel, Master's in Counseling from Drake University, January 21, 2008, Teens Tried as Adults A Failure, Suite101.com, http://www.suite101.com/content/teens-tried-as-adults-a-failure-a37565, ACC. 12-8-2010 Robert L. Johnson, dean of the New Jersey Medical School, states the court actions of the past twenty years have accomplished the following: Laws have not deterred other youth from committing crimes; They have not rehabilitated the youth sentenced under them. Johnson is a member of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services assembled by the CDC. The panel reviewed not two or three studies but six. The studies analyzed the effects of sentencing juveniles into adult prisons. Johnson says, "Not only does it not deter youth crime, it actually makes them more violent." A Florida study shows that youth sent into the adult system had 34% more felony arrests after being released than those held in juvenile facilities. 5. TRYING JUVENILES AS ADULTS CAUSES FASTER RECIDIVISM Barbara Pytel, Master's in Counseling from Drake University, January 21, 2008, Teens Tried as Adults A Failure, Suite101.com, http://www.suite101.com/content/teens-tried-as-adults-a-failure-a37565, ACC. 12-8-2010 Shay Bilchik, a former prosecutor in Florida, says, "You couldnt ask for any worse results." Bilchik is now the director of the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute. He was once a supporter of the "try them as adults" trend but has changed his mind. "Were getting faster recidivism for more serious crimes."

35

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Sample Negative TRANSFERRING JUVENILES CAUSES MORE VIOLENCE AND VICTIMIZATION
1. ADULT PRISONS FOSTER EVEN GREATER VIOLENCE AND VICTIMIZATION Jon R. Sorensen, PhD, professor of justice studies at Prairie View A&M University, September 2008, Juvenile Inmates in an Adult Prison System: Rates of Disciplinary Misconduct and Violence, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35:9, p. 1187 Other research has demonstrated that juveniles in adult facilities are at much greater risk of harm than youth in the custody of juvenile institutions. This includes research examining comparative rates of suicide, victimization, and physical violence by staff. Less studied has been the potential for juveniles in adult correctional systems to perpetrate acts of violence, as opposed to being targeted for victimization. Research findings of an inverse relationship between inmate age and the commission of prison disciplinary infractions and violence suggest that juvenile offenders may be disproportionately involved as perpetrators as well as victims of aggressive misconduct when placed in adult prisons. 2. TRANSFERRING JUVENILES TO ADULT PRISONS TURNS THEM INTO CAREER CRIMINALS AND LEGITIMATES DOMINATION Donna M. Bishop, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, 2009, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, in Reforming Juvenile Justice, J. Junger-Tas and F. Dnkel (eds.), p. 98 The Florida researchers reported that in the institutional world of the adult prison, youths were more likely to learn social rules and norms that legitimated domination, exploitation, and retaliation. Youths routinely observed both staff and inmate models who exhibited these behaviors and reinforced illegal norms. Others in the inmate subculture taught them criminal motivations as well as techniques of committing crime and avoiding detection. The Florida researchers also reported that prison staff engaged in negative shaming: Custodial staff most often treated inmates with disdain and hostility, and clearly communicated messages that youths were irredeemable and incapable of change. 3. ADULT SYSTEM ONLY TEACHS JUVENILES HOW TO BE MORE VIOLENT Donna M. Bishop, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, 2009, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, in Reforming Juvenile Justice, J. Junger-Tas and F. Dnkel (eds.), p. 98 Official records data indicate that youths who are sentenced to incarceration by the criminal courts most often serve their sentences in adult correctional facilities where they are housed together with the general population of adult inmates (31 states), with youthful offenders up to age 21 or 25 (7 states), or some combination of the two (5 states). Prison inmates are older, more often violent, and often have lengthy criminal histories and prior experiences with incarceration. Consequently, when juveniles are transferred to criminal court and institutionalized with adults, they are exposed to an older, more seasoned and more violent group of offenders over an extended period. 4. JUVENILES GET EXPOSED TO GANG VIOLENCE IN ADULT PRISONS Donna M. Bishop, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, 2009, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, in Reforming Juvenile Justice, J. Junger-Tas and F. Dnkel (eds.), p. 99 They also reported that organized gangs were the dominant social group in adult prisons, while loosely organized groups of peers dominated in juvenile facilities; that youths in adult correctional facilities experienced a greater sense of danger, and that those confined in adult facilities had significantly higher rates of depression, and scored significantly more poorly on measures of overall levels of mental health functioning than youth in juvenile correctional institutions.

36

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Sample Negative TRANSFERRING JUVENILES CAUSES SEXUAL AND PHYSICAL ABUSE
1. TRANSFERRED JUVENILE ARE SUBJECTED TO ROUTINE PHYSICAL AND SEXUAL ABUSE Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 High inmate-to-staff ratios and overcrowding are particularly problematic when it comes to providing protections for incarcerated children in adult facilities. Many youth are routinely physically and sexually abused by older prisoners and often resort to violence themselves in an attempt to assert authority. Young children are commonly targets of physical and sexual abuse due to the fact that they are smaller than their adult counterparts, do not have a social network in place to protect them, and are easily intimidated. This abuse comes at the hands of both adult inmates and prison staff. 2. JUVENILES IN THE ADULT SYSTEM ARE TWICE AS LIKELY TO GET BEATEN OR RAPED. THIS SHOULD ONLY BE A LAST RESORT Missy Webb, Yahoo Staff Writer, June 7, 2007, Criminal Justice: Should Juveniles Be Treated as Adults?, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/267194/criminal_justice_should_juveniles_be.html, Associated Content, ACC. 12-8-2010 Studies show that juveniles in adult institutions are 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted, twice as likely to be beaten by guards, and half as likely to be attacked with a weapon than if they were placed in a juvenile institution. Having said all this there are still circumstances that call for a juvenile to be treated as an adult. When this is necessary, usually as a last resort, a very careful, objective, and rational selection must be used to determine who these individuals are. Even then, they must be placed in safe and humane establishments where they are treated as human equals. 3. OVER 50% OF JUVENILES IN ADULT PRISONS WILL BE ATTACKED BY INMATES OR STAFF Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 According to a comprehensive study led by Professor Jeffrey Fagan of Columbia University, children placed in adult prison have been found to be 50 percent more likely to be physically attacked by fellow inmates with a weapon of some sort, and twice as likely as adults to be physically assaulted by staff members. One in ten youth reports an instance of abuse by staff. 4. JUVENILES GET RAPED IN ADULT PRISONS WITHIN THE FIRST 24 HOURS Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 The statistics are even more alarming when it comes to sexual abuse, especially considering the fact that many cases go unreported. According to the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, young first-time offenders are at increased risk of sexual victimization and youth held in adult facilities are five times as likely to be victims of sexual abuse and rape as youth who are kept in the juvenile system. According to one adult corrections officer who was interviewed for an article in the New Republic, young inmates have little hope of avoiding rape: Hell get raped within the first twenty-five to forty-eight hours. Thats almost standard.

37

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com

38

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Sample Negative TRANSFERRING JUVENILES CREATES A CRIMINAL STIGMA
1. JUVENILES TRANSFERRED MUST LIVE WITH A CRIMINAL STIGMA, WHICH UNDERMINES EFFORTS TO OBTAIN EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES Donna M. Bishop, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, 2009, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, in Reforming Juvenile Justice, J. Junger-Tas and F. Dnkel (eds.), p. 99 Those who are transferred to the adult system also must deal with the greater stigma that attaches to a criminal conviction. This is true of those who are placed on probation in the community as well as those who are sentenced to incarceration. Felony convictions must be reported on employment applications, making it more difficult to obtain jobs. Those convicted of felonies in adult court are barred from military service and many other forms of public employment. They may be denied access to student loans and educational opportunities. They are frequently ineligible for low-cost public housing. They also have more difficulty reintegrating into conventional social networks. 2. TRANSFERRED JUVENILES BECOME STIGMATIZED FOR LIFE AND ROUTINELY VICTIMIZED BY ADULTS Kareem L. Jordan, University of North Florida, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, and Tina L. Freiburger, University of WisconsinMilwaukee, 2010, Examining the Impact of Race and Ethnicity on the Sentencing of Juveniles in the Adult Court, Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21:2 pp. 185-186 Though the juvenile justice system was created to protect adolescents from the stigma associated with the adult criminal justice system, an ideological shift has occurred that is aimed at being tough on juvenile delinquency. A result of this shift has been the transfer of juveniles out of juvenile court and into the adult court. Once transferred, juveniles are considered adults in a court where discretionary focus is off the offender and placed almost solely on the offense. Despite these youths adult status, however, their age makes them more vulnerable (e.g., greater levels of victimization) and a unique group within the adult system. Their uniqueness generates a need for research specifically examining their treatment and processing. 3. PUBLIC RECORDS GUARANTEE JUVENILES ARE STIGMATIZED THEIR WHOLE LIVES Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 There are significant long-term legal, political and socio-economic repercussions for children tried or convicted in adult criminal court. While juvenile proceedings are normally closed to the public and the records are sealed, adult trials are often open to the general public and the media. Thus, the childs criminal history is a matter of public record, even if the child is ultimately cleared of the charge. In a practical sense, this means that upon release from prison, regardless of the fact that the sentence is complete, children convicted as adults are required to report their felony conviction on every job or housing application they fill out. 4. CRIMINAL STIGMATIZATION FOSTERS RECIDIVISM Donna M. Bishop, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, 2009, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, in Reforming Juvenile Justice, J. Junger-Tas and F. Dnkel (eds.), pp. 99-100 Most youths who engage in delinquency will desist from crime by early adulthood as they move into jobs and marriages that give them a sense of place and purpose, while those prosecuted in the criminal justice system carry a stigma that may severely limit legitimate work and social opportunities, and impair their life chances for a very long period of time. Stigmatization and obstruction of conventional opportunities certainly make re-offending more likely.

39

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Sample Negative JUVENILE TRANSFERS UNDERMINE PUBLIC SAFETY
1. PROSECUTING KIDS AS ADULTS UNDERMINES PUBLIC SAFETY THROUGH HIGH RECIDIVISM Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 The practice of treating children as adults for criminal justice purposes also poses serious public safety risks, as well as risks to the individual child. The research unequivocally shows that children prosecuted as adults are more likely to re-offend and to pose a threat to society. According to a recent report by a Task Force appointed by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control, the transfer of youth to the adult system not only has no deterrent value but typically increases rather than decreases their rates of violence. 2. YOUTHS ARE LESS LIKELY TO COMMIT NEW CRIMES IF THEY STAY IN THE JUVENILE SYSTEM Mark Soler, Executive Director of the Center for Children's Law and Policy, 2009, Juvenile Justice: Lessons For A New Era, Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 16 Geo. J. Poverty Law & Pol'y 483, Lexis Nexis It independently reached the same conclusion as the OJJDP report with respect to recidivism, and further found that transfer policies put youth directly in danger because they are often victimized by adult inmates and are 36 times as likely to commit suicide in an adult jail as in a juvenile detention facility. The Task Force recommended "against laws or policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles from the juvenile to the adult judicial system." This research demonstrates that policy makers seeking to protect public safety through increasing transfer provisions have actually made their communities less safe. Young people are less likely to commit future crimes if they stay in the juvenile justice system. A few states are beginning to re-examine these laws, but these research findings give reason for every state to reconsider trying youth as adults. 3. TRANSFERRING JUVENILES UNDERMINES PUBLIC SAFETY Donna M. Bishop, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, 2009, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, in Reforming Juvenile Justice, J. Junger-Tas and F. Dnkel (eds.), p. 100 Beyond considerations of fairness, research also supports the conclusion that, on utilitarian grounds, expansive transfer policies are both imprudent and harmful. Instead of deterring young offenders, it appears that prosecution and punishment as an adult is criminogenic. Compared to retention in the juvenile system, transfer has deleterious effects on youths to whom it is applied and only increases the risk to public safety. When transfer statutes are applied broadly, incapacitative gains reaped in the short run are quickly nullified over the long term. 4. HOUSING JUVENILES IN ADULT JAILS DENIES SERVICES AND UNDERMINES PUBLIC SAFETY Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 This widespread practice of housing children in jails, detention centers, and prisons that are designed for a much older population not only provides them with only limited access to educational services and rehabilitative therapy, it also puts the child at serious risk and has long-term effects on his or her mental and physical well-being. The sections below examine these risks and consequences in more detail. Even public safety is compromised by the practice of housing juveniles in adult jails and prisons.

40

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Sample Negative JUVENILE TRANSFERS UNDERMINE JUSTICE
1. JUVENILES TRANSFERRED TO ADULT COURTS ARE POORLY REPRESENTED Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 The adult criminal court process is built around a highly structured, confrontational process that is hard for young minds to understand. Pre-adolescents on trial for serious offenses are reliant on their legal counsel to explain the complexities of the court proceedings and to advise them on how to proceed. The majority of children who are transferred to adult court do not use private counsel and are provided instead with court-appointed attorneys. In many states, these attorneys are not required to have any criminal defense training or expertise and they are paid some of the lowest rates in the field. Even where there are experienced public defenders, they tend to have heavy caseloads that afford them very little time to spend with each client and they often have little time for investigation in a case. 2. JUVENILES TRANSFERRED ARE DENIED SPEEDY TRIALS David L. Myers, Ph.D., Department of Criminology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, April 2003, Adult Crime, Adult Time: Punishing Violent Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1:2, p. 176. Moreover, case processing time is becoming an emerging point of emphasis in juvenile justice as immediate interventions are being stressed as a response to delinquent behavior. A relatively small amount of research indicates that transferred juveniles have their cases processed much more slowly than do similar offenders retained in juvenile court. If there is any benefit to be gained from a more rapid response to youthful offending, then more knowledge needs to be generated concerning differences in case processing times between the juvenile and adult systems. 3. THE ADULT SYSTEM DENIES JUVENILES DUE PROCESS RIGHTS Mark Soler, Executive Director of the Center for Children's Law and Policy, 2009, Juvenile Justice: Lessons For A New Era, Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 16 Geo. J. Poverty Law & Pol'y 483, Lexis Nexis Incarcerated youth have a number of constitutional rights. For example, the Supreme Court has held that incarcerated individuals who have not been convicted of a crime may not be subjected to conditions that amount to punishment. This right stems from the Fourteenth Amendment, "[f]or under the Due Process Clause a detainee may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law." Because youth in the juvenile justice system have not been convicted of crimes (the proceedings are civil, not criminal in nature), youth may not be held under conditions that constitute punishment. 4. JUDGES AND PROBATION OFFICERS ARE ILL-EQUIPPED TO HANDLE THE NEEDS OF JUVENILES Michele Deitch, J.D., Adjunct Professor LBJ School of Public Affairs, Et. Al. 2009, From time out to hard time: Young Children in the Adult Criminal Justice System, The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/archive/news/images/file/From%20Time%20Out%20to%20Hard%20Timerevised%20final.pdf, ACC. 12-8-2010 A child who is transferred to adult criminal court will likely encounter a judge with little experience in trying pre-adolescents. Expertise in trying adult cases does not necessarily translate to knowledge of the needs of juvenile defendants, and so the judge may not be sensitive to those routine procedures that cause difficulty for the child. Once a child is convicted, the inexperience of the adult court system in this regard is particularly harmful to the youth. Judges and probation officers may not be familiar with appropriate programs and available resources that could help rehabilitate the child, assuming that the judge even has flexibility in designing an appropriate sentence. But far more likely, the judge will assess

41

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com

punishment without having the opportunity to take the childs youth into account, due to the prevalence of mandatory sentences.

42

West Coast Publishing January / February 2011 LD Juvenile Felons www.wcdebate.com Sample Negative TRANSFERS SHOULD BE THE EXCEPTION, NOT RULE
1. TRANSFERS SHOULD HAPPEN ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES Donna M. Bishop, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, 2009, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, in Reforming Juvenile Justice, J. Junger-Tas and F. Dnkel (eds.), p. 92 These advances support the following conclusions: Adolescents are less culpable than adults. On grounds of fairness, they should not be held to adult standards of responsibility. Transfer to the criminal justice system exacerbates the risk of recidivism. On utilitarian grounds, it cannot be justified except in the most exceptional of circumstances. 2. UNIVERSAL SCHEMES OF JUVENILE TRANSFERS FAIL. WE SHOULD ADOPT A SELECTIVE STRATEGY David L. Myers, Ph.D., Department of Criminology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, April 2003, Adult Crime, Adult Time: Punishing Violent Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1:2, p. 190. The results of this study and several others indicate that violent juvenile offenders are punished more harshly in the adult criminal justice system as compared to similar youth retained in juvenile court. However, other research findings and recent events (i.e., those in Pennsylvania) suggest reason for caution in adopting a widespread approach to waiving violent adolescents to adult court. Instead, more selective strategies seem warranted in which only the most violent youth (e.g., those employing firearms and chronic violent offenders) are targeted for criminal court processing. This appears to provide the best chance for accountability and punishment as well as for short- and longterm public safety. 3. JUVENILE CRIME RATES ARE DECREASING NOW AND SO SHOULD TRANSFERS

Juvenile False Confessions and Competency to Stand Trial: Implications for Policy Reformation and Research, The New
Rebecca L. Jackson, Ph.D., 2010,
School Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 7, No.1, p. 62

Adolescents are at an increased risk for legal incompetence due to evolving development in multiple domains (Steinberg & Cauffman, 1999). The past two decades saw a substantial spike in juvenile (i.e., under age 18) crime rates, followed by a recent decline. During the spike, more juveniles were interrogated and put on trial, which caused increased concern about the legal standards for youths in the Miranda Waiver/interrogation process as well as in CST proceedings (Cox, 2008). 4. JUVENILES ARE BEST SERVED IN THE JUVENILE SYSTEM, EXCEPT IN RARE CASES Donna M. Bishop, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern University, 2009, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, in Reforming Juvenile Justice, J. Junger-Tas and F. Dnkel (eds.), p. 100 On grounds of both fairness and practicality, then, juvenile offenders are best retained in the juvenile justice system, which is better equipped to respond to adolescents in ways that promote positive youth development. Neuroscientific research and research in developmental psychology clearly support the conclusion that, except in rare cases, it is inappropriate to hold adolescents to adult standards of criminal responsibility.

43