The Instigator
Haelee16
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Anyone 16 or older should be held accountable for their own actions within the court of law

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 773 times Debate No: 20701
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Haelee16

Pro

The law indeed does say that anyone under the age of 18 is counted as a 'Minor' (at least in the state of Tennessee) I believe that once 16, any law involvement should be moved up to a higher power of the court system (other than Juvenile court) I have only seen a delinquent charged as an adult during murder..Once 16, you should be held accountable for your actions under the jurisdiction of the court!
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I agree, if we accept the definition in the chat, which, for reference:

Anyone 16 or older: include every single person over 16

Also, for reference:

Accountable: The person who committed to a crime is the one responsible for the action and should be punished, not a proxy.

within the court of law: Within the judiciary system of a modern court.
Debate Round No. 1
Haelee16

Pro

Haelee16 forfeited this round.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited. I shall wait for my opponent to present a case.
Debate Round No. 2
Haelee16

Pro

Anyone(Human) 16 or older should qualify for a higher court such as general sessions insted of Juvenile court.The refferee for the juveniles usually just take the delinquents drivers license away for a period of usually 1 year, therfore the general sessions should just have to go ahead and accept 16 and older.a child starting at the age of 10 can begin the process of being criminally involved with Juvenile court, that gives an iindevidual 6 years to stop and realize.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

...okay, let's try a little fisking to make this debate a little longer.

Anyone(Human) 16 or older should qualify for a higher court such as general sessions insted of Juvenile court.
This is simply restating the position of PRO, so I won't say much. However, I would like to point out my opponent affirms anyone. Every single person. Let's look at who falls into the category of anyone:

Me
Those who suffer from mental disabilities
Those with a petition of Right[1]
Those who are acting as diplomats or equivalent from another country.
Now, you may hold different weight to each of these things, but I plan to argue that "all" people is too wide a group to call to order.

The refferee[sic] for the juveniles usually just take[s] the delinquents['] drivers license away for a period of usually 1 year...

Alright, my opponent probably is referring to a referee of the juvenile court[2], but the fact that this is all that happens most of the time shows one simple "fact": that delinquents usually do not need to be punished to the extent that they need a full criminal hearing and be taken to a serious punishment. However, I question that this usually happens. If this was not the final round, I would probably ask for a citation of this. However, if we look this up at all, we can see[3] that "The referee will make a recommendation to the judge regarding the finding and disposition. Dispositions that the referee recommends are subject to approval by the judge and include those available in matters handled by a judge with the exception of out-of-home placement". In other words, he will make an advisory settlement. If the adivce he gives is only a one year driver licence ban don't you think that shows how little danger there is?


Therfore[sic] the general sessions should just have to go ahead and accept 16 and older.
Again, simply an affirmation to the motion. If I was to make the argument into a syllogism:

P1 - "The refferee[sic] for the juveniles usually just take[s] the delinquents['] drivers license away for a period of usually 1 year"
P2 - ???
C1 - Profit Therfore[sic] the general sessions should just have to go ahead and accept 16 and older.
The first premise is wrong, there is no second premise, and the conclusion does not link to the first premise.

[A] child starting at the age of 10 can begin the process of being criminally involved with Juvenile court, that gives an iindevidual 6 years to stop and realize.

I don't know how to respond to this. I don't even understand the point. Is it a second idea? A postulation? An argument? I would, again, ask for clarification, but I have no extra rounds.


My argument:

My argument comes from the simple proposition that not 100% of children should be subject to their own actions. I shall split it up into two seperate groups: those who cannot represent themselves, and those who do not represent themselves.

Cannot Represent themselves: the psychologically deficient

Those who are psychologically deficient cannot represent themselves. This much is clear. The law specifically addresses this, and says "Where in any indictment or information any act or omission is charged against any person as an offence...but was insane as aforesaid at the time when he did or made the same, the jury shall return a special verdict that the accused is not guilty by reason of insanity"[3]. This states quite clearly that one who is psychoogically deficient may be deemed not to represent themselves, and they are not guilty of any crime.

Does not represent themselves: the Ambassadors

Ambassadors have what is known as diplomatic immunity, which "in the UK is conferred on all entitled members of a foreign mission (and entitled family members forming part of their household, provided they are not nationals of the UK) who have been notified to, and accepted by, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) as performing a diplomatic function. Immunity is dependent on rank, and ranges from immunity from criminal and civil and administrative jurisdiction to immunity for official acts only."[4]. As they represent their country, and precedent has given them immunity, they do not represent themselves, and therefore they are not themselves 'prosecutable' of any crime.

If you agree with either of my arguments, they prima facie rank over my opponent. I suggest they have made a poor attempt at a debate, and has not messaged me even though they have forfeited to restart the debate or in any way attempted contact myself. The spelling and grammar has been poor, and have made unsubstantiated (unsourced) claims. I feel the vote is obvious, vote CON.



1 - http://www.britannia.com...;
2 - http://referees-association.org...;
3 - http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us...;
4 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk...;
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Halee, can you say why you did not post an argument?
Posted by Haelee16 5 years ago
Haelee16
Yes, that's what Im saying..Anyone 16 and older(which means any single human) should be held accountable for their actions with the court of law..
Posted by DevonNetzley 5 years ago
DevonNetzley
I learned my lesson.
Posted by Haelee16 5 years ago
Haelee16
Yes, anyone over 16..Most delinquents hide behind the fact that we are Juveniles and that the court cant touch us, I feel that's why so many of us show out and like some people would say "Never learn our lesson"
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Does anyone include every single person over 16?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
Haelee16Stephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
Haelee16Stephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. NO matter how strong your argument is a forfeit = a loss. Plus, Pro's argument was weak.