The Instigator
yash101
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TruthHurts
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Should kids under the age of 18 go to prison

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 3 votes the winner is...
TruthHurts
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,922 times Debate No: 59153
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

yash101

Pro

First of all, when you go to a prison, you can be scared against bad people in prison so you will not do it again. For example, pretend an imaginary kid went to a prison camp. the bad kids there will treat the imaginary kid terribly and he will hate it when they always beat him up! That proves my point because the bad people were the ones who treated him badly and he probably never wants to do it again.
TruthHurts

Con

Hello, Pro. Interesting topic, glad to debate it with you.

For the sake of this debate, I shall assume that Pro means prisons as detention facilities for criminal offenders over the age of 18.

Note that Pro makes no delineations about either age or crime. This means that Pro will have the sole BOP in defending a world where all criminal offenders under the age of 18, if sentenced to incarceration, will go to a prison like the one I delineated earlier, rather than a juvenile detention facility.

With that in mind, I have two arguments.

I. Incarcerating juveniles in prisons harms rehabilitation and deterrence.

Juveniles incarcerated in prisons have their future economic and social prospects irrevocably harmed, and return to prisons at a significantly higher rate than those not incarcerated in prisons do. This incarceration, has also not been found to increase public safety in any material fashion [all from 1].

II. Incarcerating juveniles in prisons leads to safety risks.

Due to the physical and psychological vulnerability of children, juveniles have higher prison mortality rates [2], higher rates of assault and rape [3], and higher rates of gang membership [4]. Committing a crime is not grounds for the complete revocation of autonomy and life rights; placing these children in prisons leads to safety risks far above those faced by adult inmates.

The importance is that since incarceration in prison has been shown not to increase rehabilitation or deterrence, these safety risks to juveniles cannot be justified.

Sources:

1. http://www.justicepolicy.org...
2. http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org...
3. http://jjie.org...
4. http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 1
yash101

Pro

Hello. Con. Good luck!

First of all, I said it is a prison, not a detention facility, and it is criminal offenders under the age of 18. Not over the age of 18.
I have many reasons why it is good to have a kid under 18 in prison or prison camp!

1. You can be scared against bad people in prison so you will not try to do an offending crime

2. Crimes warranting prison usually range from severe cases of assault and battery to drug possession of high amounts with intent to sell to much more severe crimes like grand theft, murder and rape. These are not crimes that a high school friend pressured them into doing, these are serious offenses that usually stem from smaller previous crimes, perhaps some that already got them sentenced to juvenile detention and/or jail.
3. I'd like to see evidence of contaminated food that you speak of. Reading articles about chow hall food, it is not the greatest tasting stuff, but it is still edible.
4. As stated above, mentally ill patients that commit crimes, especially those that commit those warranting prison time, are committed to a special facility. This is the reason that the "not guilty by reason of mental illness or defect" plea is admissible in court. It allows a defendant to plea that they were not responsible for their action due to mental illness and therefore are instead sentenced to special treatment instead. If a defendant refuses to plea to that extent then it is their own fault for getting put in the location they are put into.

6. As for safety, it's prison. There are officers but it is still a complex full of people that committed high level crime. If you don't want to be around them don't commit the crime.

Now, all that being said. I think that teenagers, at least above the age or 15 or 16, should be able to be sent to prison if they commit crimes that are worthy of it. Bye! Good luck
TruthHurts

Con

Let's be clear about what Pro is arguing. The resolution which Pro presented was, "Should kids under the age of 18 go to prison." The use of 'prison' is important, as this denotes a different facility than a juvenile detention facility. This means that Pro is defending a world where juveniles are incarcerated in the same facility as adult offenders.

Pro never defined 'prison,' while I clarified. If Pro had meant a juvenile-only facility, then he would simply be arguing for the status quo. Juvenile detention facilities are, effectively, prison-like environments for juvenile, but ARE NOT "prisons" in the broad sense of the word. However, Pro never made this clarification, he cannot shift definitions now.

Note: Pro never rebuts any of my arguments. Please extend them through. If Pro cannot rebut my points, he loses the round, because he has not shown the efficacy or the morality of his proposal.

Rebuttals:

1. Pro needs to cite a source which shows that prisons are an effective deterrent for children. I have shown that prisons increase recidivism and irrevocably harm children, which Pro will need to somehow outweigh. What seems more likely, as I cited earlier, is that such fears will lead only to gang membership, which increases criminal activity inside and outside prisons.

2. Purely assertion. People get sentenced to prison for marijuana possession, for example. Either way, this point is a non sequitir, as incapacitation could occur in juvenile detention.

3. What?

4. Again, irrelevant.

6. What I have demonstrated (see earlier evidence) is that putting children in prisons lead to SIGNIFICANTLY higher rates of assault, rape, gang membership, and morality. You should not be subject to obscenely high levels of violence just because you committed a crime.

"I think that teenagers...over the age of 15 or 16."

You did not make this clear in background, and you cannot shift now. You must defend ALL children going to prison, if sentenced. This is essentially a concession.
Debate Round No. 2
yash101

Pro

yash101 forfeited this round.
TruthHurts

Con

Extend, vote Con. Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TruthHurts 3 years ago
TruthHurts
No problem. I had already posted my round by the time I saw your comment, but I didn't say anything in terms of argumentation, so hopefully that works for you.
Posted by yash101 3 years ago
yash101
TruthHurts, an accident happened. I was trying to reload the page and it somehow forfeited the round. Please forfeit round to make this a fair debate! Check my profile, this is my first debate! I don't know much about debating. I signed up 4 days ago. Please!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 3 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
yash101TruthHurtsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
yash101TruthHurtsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Mojique 3 years ago
Mojique
yash101TruthHurtsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited their last round, didn't do anything with their burden, made arguments that were completely irrelevant without any explanation of how they linked to the resolution, didn't make their position clear and didn't have any sources, straight 6-0 (i almost never vote on grammar, even though yash101 had some pretty bad stuff.)