LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE

NFL Topic, January-February 2011

Dr. John F. Schunk, Editor

“Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system.”

AFFIRMATIVE

A01. JUVENILE CRIME IS A SCOURGE ON AMERICA

A02. JUVENILE SYSTEM FAILS TO DETER CRIME

A03. TRANSFER TO ADULT COURT INCREASES PUNISHMENT

A04. INCREASED PUNISHMENT DETERS JUVENILE CRIME

A05. INCAPACITATION DECREASES JUVENILE CRIME

A06. PAST CRIME DECREASES WERE DUE TO TOUGHER LAWS

A07. MUST TRANSFER VIOLENT JUVENILES TO ADULT COURT

A08. JUDGES CAN DETERMINE WHICH JUVENILES TO TRANSFER

A09. VIOLENT JUVENILES ARE TRANSFERRED TO ADULT COURT

A10. BRAIN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES ARE FLAWED

A11. JUVENILES ARE COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL AS ADULTS

A12. TRANSFERS ARE NOT UNFAIR TO MINORITIES

A13. LIFE-WITHOUT-PAROLE IS FAIR FOR VIOLENT JUVENILES

NEGATIVE

N01. JUVENILE CRIME IS DECREASING SHARPLY

N02. PREDICTIONS OF JUVENILE CRIME WAVE WERE BOGUS

N03. HARSH JUVENILE LAWS ARE BEING ROLLED BACK

N04. DECREASE IN JUVENILE CRIME NOT DUE TO TOUGH LAWS

N05. JUVENILE SYSTEM PROMOTES REHABILITATION

N06. JUVENILE BRAIN IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM ADULT BRAIN

N07. TRANSFER TO ADULT COURT IS A FLAWED SYSTEM

N08. TRANSFER TO ADULT COURT INCREASES RECIDIVISM

N09. ADULT PRISON FOR JUVENILES IS CRUEL PUNISHMENT

N10. ADULT COURT STIGMATIZES JUVENILES FOR LIFE

N11. TRANSFER TO ADULT COURT IS DISCRIMINATORY

N12. ADULT COURT OFTEN GIVES MORE LENIENT SENTENCE

N13. LIFE-WITHOUT-PAROLE IS UNJUSTIFIED FOR JUVENILES

S-K PUBLICATIONS
PO Box 8173
Wichita KS 67208-0173

PH 316-685-3201
FAX 316-685-6650

http://www.squirrelkillers.com

SK/A01. JUVENILE CRIME IS A SCOURGE ON AMERICA

1. VIOLENT JUVENILE CRIME IS ON THE INCREASE

SK/A01.01) Thomas J. Billiteri, CQ RESEARCHER, March 5, 2010, p. 195. Youth violence today "is much more serious, much more complex and it's spreading," says Carl Taylor, a Michigan State University sociologist who has studied the phenomenon for decades. Once limited largely to hardcore street gangs, he says, the problem now is "transcending race, class and gender.”

SK/A01.02) Laurence Steinberg [Professor of Psychology, Temple U.], THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN, Fall 2008, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. Juvenile crime rates, which have risen and fallen cyclically for four decades, will likely rise again, though perhaps not to the extremes of the early 1990s. Indeed, although rates continue to be low, they have crept up recently; in the past year or two, violent crime by juveniles has edged above the 2004 rates, which were the lowest in nearly two decades.

SK/A01.03) Elizabeth Brown, SOCIAL JUSTICE, Spring 2009, p. 102, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. The number of people arrested for violent crimes has increased by two-thirds in the past 10 years. The number of children arrested for murder ... has doubled in the past 10 years.

SK/A01.04) Karla J. Grady [Hamilton County, OH, Municipal Court Judge], THE CINCINNATI POST, December 24, 2007, p. A9, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Custom Newspapers. Having served as a Hamilton County Juvenile Court judge for three years, I have witnessed first hand the steady rise in juvenile crime and other contact with the court system. Having served as an assistant Hamilton County prosecutor for 14 years and a Hamilton County Municipal Court judge for 10 years, I have seen the tragic consequences of juvenile offenders moving on to a life of adult crime. There is no denying that juvenile crime is a growing problem.

2. JUVENILE CRIME IS WAY TOO HIGH

SK/A01.05) Moin A. Yahya [Asst. Professor of Law, U. of Alberta, Canada], PENN STATE LAW REVIEW, Summer 2006, LEXISNEXIS Academic, p. 57. Juvenile crime rates are unacceptably high, and yet the severity of punishments for juveniles has been diminishing. Figure 1 shows the crime rates for various age groups. While these numbers dropped over the last decade, the crime rate among young Americans is still higher than the overall crime rate. Adults are being punished more harshly every day, sometimes with draconian sentences, while juveniles get away with murder. The seriousness and heinousness of juvenile crimes has been getting worse over time.


SK/A01.06) Paul Pinkham, THE FLORIDA TIMES UNION, November 10, 2009, p. A1, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Custom Newspapers. But Florida Solicitor General Scott Makar argued in both cases Monday that sentencing decisions are best left to individual states to decide. He asked the justices to consider the dramatic rise in violent juvenile crime that led to stiffer sanctions in the 1990s. "What they're asking ... goes against national consensus and national trends," Makar contended. In both cases, he said, the level of violence was "off the scale."


SK/A02. JUVENILE SYSTEM FAILS TO DETER CRIME

1. JUVENILE SYSTEM SANCTIONS FAIL TO DETER CRIME

SK/A02.01) Peter Katel, CQ RESEARCHER, November 7, 2008, p. 920. A key argument for tougher laws holds that many young, potential criminals are scared "straight" at the thought of going to adult court - and possibly adult prison. "Proponents of the latest reform proposals espouse a philosophy of retribution and punishment - insisting that the juvenile court and its sanctions do not deter juvenile crime," the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention said in summarizing a 1996 conference in Washington.

SK/A02.02) Peter Katel, CQ RESEARCHER, November 7, 2008, p. 915. "Family Court is no deterrent," said Caspari [Washington, D.C. lawyer]. "Punishment and consequences are simply not taken seriously by the offenders. If you want to instill a sense of accountability in these teens and provide therapy and services - there's no reason why you can't provide that in the adult system - while protecting the community."

SK/A02.03) THE FLORIDA TIMES UNION, January 23, 2007, p. B8, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Custom Newspapers. One of the greatest obstacles to reversing violent crime across the state is fixing a broken juvenile justice system, which doesn't have enough consequences for repeat offenders, law enforcement officials said Monday. Federal lawmakers and community leaders convened with state and local law enforcement for the second time in six months to discuss ways to combat an increase in crime across the state, including crimes committed by juvenile repeat offenders. At the meeting, Orlando Police Chief Michael McCoy said juveniles are committing more crimes because they don't face appropriate punishment.

2. IT IS INFERIOR DETERRENT TO TRANSFER TO ADULT COURT

SK/A02.04) Sharon Cohen, THE RECORD (Bergen County, NJ), December 2, 2007, p. A1, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Custom Newspapers. State Attorney Harry Shorstein of Jacksonville, Fla., has his own approach. "I think I've created my own juvenile justice system," he says. "The secret is not choosing punishment versus prevention, but using both." In 16 years, Shorstein's office has transferred more than 2,600 juvenile cases to adult court. Almost all those who've broken the law go to jail for about a year, where they live separately from adults, attend school and receive social services. If they stay out of trouble while locked up, and for two years of probation, they don't get a record. "I believe crime is like gymnastics," he says. "It really is a young person's sport. If you incapacitate a 15- or 16-year-old for a year, you can prevent more crime than if you imprison a 22-year-old for life."


SK/A03. TRANSFER TO ADULT COURT INCREASES PUNISHMENT

1. NEW LAWS HAVE FACILITATED TRANSFER TO ADULT COURT

SK/A03.01) Jeffrey J. Shook [Asst. Professor of Law, U. of Pittsburgh] & Rosemary C. Sarri [Professor Emeritus of Social Work, U. of Michigan], THE WAYNE LAW REVIEW, Winter 2008, LEXISNEXIS Academic, pp. 1728-1729. Legislation easing the transfer of juveniles to the adult criminal court has been a major component of juvenile code changes over the last several decades. Between 1992 and 1997 alone, forty-five states and the District of Columbia enacted at least one legislative change that eased the process of waiving juveniles to the adult criminal justice system by lowering or eliminating minimum ages for transfer eligibility, expanding the range of offenses eligible for transfer, focusing transfer criteria on offense-based characteristics, and shifting decision making discretion from judges to prosecutors.

SK/A03.02) Jeffrey J. Shook [Asst. Professor of Law, U. of Pittsburgh] & Rosemary C. Sarri [Professor Emeritus of Social Work, U. of Michigan], THE WAYNE LAW REVIEW, Winter 2008, LEXISNEXIS Academic, p. 1730. Twenty-nine states now employ statutory exclusion provisions and fifteen states employ prosecutorial discretion provisions, representing a major shift in how the decision to treat a juvenile as an adult is made. In large part, though not exclusively, these provisions focus on specific groups of violent and serious offenders and critics and proponents alike contend that they will reduce barriers-for example, judges-to the transfer of youth to the criminal justice system.

2. GOAL OF TRANSFER TO ADULT COURT IS INCREASED PUNISHMENT

SK/A03.03) Jeffrey J. Shook [Asst. Professor of Law, U. of Pittsburgh] & Rosemary C. Sarri [Professor Emeritus of Social Work, U. of Michigan], THE WAYNE LAW REVIEW, Winter 2008, LEXISNEXIS Academic, pp. 1725-1726. Over the last several decades, almost every state in the United States has enacted legislative changes easing the process of treating juveniles as adults in the justice systems. The rationales for these changes generally centered on the perception that the rising juvenile crime rates in the late 1980s and early 1990s signified the emergence of an increasingly "dangerous" and "sophisticated" juvenile offender and that the juvenile court did not possess the tools to either adequately rehabilitate or punish this offender. Proponents argued that transferring juveniles to the adult criminal justice system was a necessary alternative because it would provide adequate punishment for these offenders and promote public safety. Thus, states passed legislation that sought to both increase the number of youth eligible to be transferred to the criminal justice system and to create decision-making mechanisms to ensure that more youth would be transferred and sentenced as adults.


SK/A03.04) Emily A. Polachek [William Mitchell College of Law], WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW, 2009, LEXISNEXIS Academic, p. 1170. One of the major planks of the "get tough" platform is the proposition that juveniles who commit an "adult crime" should do "adult time." This now infamous slogan refers to the practice of juvenile transfer to criminal court, or "the transfer of youth to the jurisdiction of the adult criminal court." Transfer is a severe sanction that can result in extended sentences, longer trials, and felony convictions. Juvenile transfer has always been a mechanism of the juvenile justice system in the United States.

SK/A03.05) Jeffrey J. Shook [Asst. Professor of Law, U. of Pittsburgh] & Rosemary C. Sarri [Professor Emeritus of Social Work, U. of Michigan], THE WAYNE LAW REVIEW, Winter 2008, LEXISNEXIS Academic, p. 1726. While a number of studies have examined the sentencing of juveniles tried as adults, none to date have focused on changes in the commitment of juvenile offenders to adult prisons. Prison commitments are an important indicator of the consequences of these policy changes because the goal of treating a juvenile as an adult is that he or she will be punished more significantly, presumably with a prison sentence, than if retained in the juvenile court.

3. TRANSFER TO ADULT COURT INCREASES INCARCERATION

SK/A03.06) Jeffrey J. Shook [Asst. Professor of Law, U. of Pittsburgh] & Rosemary C. Sarri [Professor Emeritus of Social Work, U. of Michigan], THE WAYNE LAW REVIEW, Winter 2008, LEXISNEXIS Academic, p. 1765. This Article adds to the knowledge base by examining the commitment of juveniles to adult prisons over a twenty-year period and found that there has, in fact, been a significant increase in the commitment of juveniles to adult prisons in Michigan over this period. Further, it is clear from our data that a broader population of juveniles was increasingly committed to adult prisons in Michigan. In part, this increase is directly attributable to Michigan's legislative reforms, particularly the shift to and consolidation of power in the prosecutor's office.

SK/A03.07) Jeffrey J. Shook [Asst. Professor of Law, U. of Pittsburgh] & Rosemary C. Sarri [Professor Emeritus of Social Work, U. of Michigan], THE WAYNE LAW REVIEW, Winter 2008, LEXISNEXIS Academic, pp. 1731-1732. At the same time, there is some agreement among scholars that these policies have led to increases in the number of youth transferred to and imprisoned in the adult criminal justice system. Donna Bishop estimated that during the mid to late 1990s, between thirty thousand and forty thousand juveniles were transferred to the criminal court in addition to the approximately one hundred eighty thousand to two hundred twenty thousand youth she estimated were processed in the adult court for crimes committed before the age of eighteen in states where the jurisdiction of the juvenile court ended prior to age eighteen. The number of youth she believed to be transferred to the criminal court represented a substantial increase over prior years and was driven, in her opinion, by youth transferred through prosecutorial discretion and statutory exclusion provisions.


4. SENTENCES ARE MORE SEVERE FOR VIOLENT OFFENDERS

SK/A03.08) Benjamin Steiner [Division of Criminal Justice, U. of Cincinnati] & Emily Wright, JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY, Summer 2006, LEXISNEXIS Academic, p. 1457. Studies that examine sentence length or time served for waived youth show that violent offenses earn longer sentences in criminal court than those typically imposed in the juvenile system, while non-violent offenses yield longer sentences in the juvenile system. In addition, Kurlychek and Johnson found that even when all legal and many extralegal factors were controlled for, juveniles waived to criminal court were sentenced to longer sentences than young adults between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four who were sentenced over the same period of time.

SK/A03.09) Benjamin Steiner [Division of Criminal Justice, U. of Cincinnati] & Emily Wright, JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY, Summer 2006, LEXISNEXIS Academic, p. 1456. Studies assessing sentencing outcomes of juveniles waived to criminal court have considered whether transferred juveniles were sentenced to incarceration or probation, as well as how long their sentences were. With regard to the former, findings from some studies indicate that juveniles are more likely to receive probation sentences when transferred to criminal court than if they had proceeded through the juvenile system. Other research indicates that the sentence outcome is contingent on offense type: non-violent offenders tend to receive more incarceration sentences in the juvenile court, while violent offenders tend to receive prison sentences more often in criminal court.