the US should change its law regarding sentencing juveniles to life in prison
Debate Rounds (3)
US - Seeing as this is not completely clarified, I will take this to mean the US Supreme Court, being the main judicial system in the country.
Juvenile - Any individual under the age of 18
Life in Prison - I will take this to mean Life in Prison without parole
In short, I will be arguing that the US Supreme Court should NOT change their current standing on sentencing juveniles to a life in prison without parole.
Looking forward to a great debate. I will let my opponent begin with his opening arguments.
Now it is clear that as of today, the US Supreme Court is against sentencing juveniles to life in prison without parole. Therefore, being Con, I believe that the US Supreme Court should not change this, partially for reasons spoken by my opponent, and also for reasons such as juveniles not being fully developed mentally, therefore not being subjected to the same judgment as a full grown adult. Allowing juveniles to be imprisoned indefinitely would simply be cruel and unjust, and I agree with pro that it would be unlawful to subject them to this punishment. In this agreement, I support my case that the current standing should not be changed.
P1: Not changing the laws would protect juveniles from life in prison without parole
P2: The US Supreme Court should protect juveniles from life in prison without parole
C1: The US Supreme Court should not change laws
There are at least 2,500 people in the US serving life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for crimes committed when they were under 18 years old. The United States is believed to stand alone in sentencing children to life without parole.Children can and do commit terrible crimes. When they do, they should be held accountable, but in a manner that reflects their special capacity for rehabilitation. However, in the United States the punishment is all too often no different from that given to adults.
As this is the final round, and to make things clear for all readers and voters, I would like I once again clarify things.
The US Supreme Court has deemed it a violation of the 8th amendment to sentence juveniles to life in prison without parole.
The title of this debate is "the US should change its laws regarding sentencing juveniles to life in prison." That being said, and being Con, I need to argue that the laws should not change. As of right now, with the current law actually protecting these juveniles, my opponent supports my side. Changing the law would in fact be a disadvantage to these children, allowing it to be legal to sentence them to life in prison without parole.
To address my opponent, I am I no way having trouble establishing my ground. I am simply stating facts as Con, or would be, yet you stated a majority of them. When looking at the current standing, my opponent is actually arguing to back to the previous protocol, allowing the US Supreme Court to sentence these juveniles to life. Pros arguments, in fact, support my claim, because in the argument he is stating, he strives to change the law. This would be contradicting his attempts to protect these individuals from life sentences without parole. I have not needed to rebut any of my opponents arguments because they support my side.
There are several reasons the law should stay the same, and in turn protect these children.
- children are not always as developed as mature individuals (most likely not)
- subjecting these individuals to life in prison is unjust and cruel
- this would not give these individuals an opportunity to redeem themselves in later life
- there are better ways to deter these individuals from committing further crimes than life in prison
- being under 18 years of age, these children are most likely going to make stupid decisions at some point
This debate may be slightly confusing for readers, seeing as the arguments posted by Pro support Con. If you have had no trouble following my case, vote con. If you did have trouble, I would advise you look at the current standing of the US Supreme Court and understand what a change would call for. Keeping the current standing is the best case for protecting these Children.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by sherlockholmesfan2798 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Con is correct when saying Pro is supporting Con. Pro should've looked a bit more in to this or changed it to " The u.u letting juveniles stay out of life imprisonment is the right thing to do"
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.