CreateDebate


Debate Info

14
16
For Against
Debate Score:30
Arguments:19
Total Votes:38
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 For (11)
 
 Against (8)

Debate Creator

amiee(18) pic



Stricter punishment is the answer to juvenile crime

Having harsher penalties for adolescents who commit life destroying crimes. 

So mainly is it right or wrong that children at the age of 13 be put in jail?

Is it a bit harsh, or is it really the way to solve teenage crime rates shooting up?

 

For

Side Score: 14
VS.

Against

Side Score: 16
1 point

i believe that stricker punishment is the answer to juvenille crime becuz jus like any other person if yu do the crime yu needa do the time. theres enough excuses as it is. juvenilles no exactly what there doing whether there 10 0r 18. so im for it i stand by this debate becuz if a 18 can get tried as an adult doing life den so can a 13 year old point blank.

Side: For
1 point

Juries should determine the culpability of juveniles on a case-by-case basis dependent on the following:

1) The nature of the crime

2) The maturity level of the individual

For example, in the Roper v. Simmons case, Christopher Simmons premeditated the murder of Shirley Crook. That should lead to the death penalty, but alas it was not so. Murder is murder, regardless of who committed it, especially if it was premeditated.

Side: For
1 point

They know what they've done and they know what the crimes are. I have a cousin whose 10 and he knows what the punishment for committing crime, the thing is these kids need to be taught a lesson and spending 2 years in jail is not enough these days. I've heaps of kids you are juvenile offenders and they spent only 2 years in jail and there no different and that's why they should have stricter sentences toward adolescents that commit crimes.

Side: For
1 point

in some way, strict punishment is needed. why? because nowadays the teenager are uncontrollable, and have high ignorance for following rules.. juvenile age is between 15-18 where in this age, they are emotion is uncontrollable and also unpredictable. they do crimes because they think that they can run and being irresponsible for their action. why? because we are too soft, we should give them strict punishment after the judgment. and some of you said that what about if they are forced to do crime? the function of judgment before giving punishment is to consider whether the suspect is wrong or not, it is totally his/her action without any related to other person or not, think about it. they also know which one is bad things and good things, if they do crimes because of joining gang and forced by friends in gang. then why they enter the gang at the first time? why don't they just joining other positive group? i myself is a 13 years old boy, but i can differentiate the good things and the bad things.. anyway sorry for the bad English

Side: For

From my own experience, people under eighteen are intelligent enough to know what they are doing when performing a crime (unless they are a very young age such as <10). I feel that if a person has the capacity to acknowledge the crime they are about to perform and have performed, then they should also have the capacity to know and go through the consequences of the crime.

Side: For
0 points

After working with juveniles for the paste 15 years. I would have to agree with stricter punishment. Reason being it's easy to be a parent and look at it as your child, be a rape victim, a parent of a child slain by a child, the person of an armed robbery or a physical assualt. It changes and you would think the children are sorry for what they have done, they may appear sorry in court, but when they are incarcerated it becomes something to brag and laugh about. What's one to five years in system that gives you things you never had at home, even if you are bad they do nothing. You want to see the crime rate drop in teenages and children, sentence them based on the crimes they do, not by the age they are and see dont they change.

Side: For
0 points

STRICTER PUNISHMENTS!!!! make them do the right thing stricter punishment will make them think before they do the crime again

Side: For
wringenberg1(1) Disputed
1 point

But if they don't know what they're doing, then why are they being punished for it? It's not right and it should be stopped today! NO STRICTER PUNISHMENTS!!!!!!!!

Side: Against
3 points

I'd say that many juveniles commit crimes under the influences of their peers, and, instead of deterrence, they ought to be offered rehabilitation instead of punishment. A thirteen year old who commits a murder as a part of induction into a gang, or as a result of gang activity, possibly and even probably had little actual choice in the matter- gangs are a form of self-protection, and many gang members have few viable options.

There are other teen crimes, of course, but for many "thrill" crime, the potential for being punished is a part of the allure- and, either way, if the likelihood of being caught is minimal, no punishment will be strong enough.

Someone will probably counter with a question about the age of culpability, and I would say 16-18, and I don't know where. Not old enough to vote, but old enough to spend the rest of your life in jail? I can't stand behind that. I really don't have an answer to that.

Side: Against
VinceX(24) Disputed
2 points

As stated in my argument, juries should consider the nature of the crime. If a thirteen year old is being forced into committing murder, it is a completely different scenario as the one that is stated in my argument (a teenager premeditating murder).

For this section of your argument, you are stating that if teenagers commit "thrill" crimes which the likelihood of being caught is minimal, then why should we drop the punishment? Should we not enforce stricter punishment for those that do get caught, thereby creating an example of what would happen if you did get caught?

Not old enough to legally drink, not old enough to vote, yet old enough to be sent out to war? If you're going to compare voting to being placed into jail, explain the logic in the what I just stated.

Side: For
RobertBouche(1) Disputed
1 point

They do have a choice, DONT join the gang. If they want to try and fit in, try a church group or something. Someone doesnt join a gang for the fun of it, they join because they know they will be involved in crime and other gang related activites

Side: For
2 points

Juveniles need to be reformed, not punished. At their age, they can still be influenced to change.

Side: Against
VinceX(24) Disputed
2 points

However, if the crime was premeditated, then they obviously knew the possible consequences of their actions. This shows that the consequences were not a serious threat to them. However, if the punishment was more strict, then it would more of a deterrent.

Side: For
sirius(367) Disputed
2 points

then they obviously knew the possible consequences

First, some people do not have the intellect to see far enough into the future or to see any possible consequences resulting from their actions. Second, the thrill of the situation could be a deterrent in itself of even thinking about future costs of current actions.

if the punishment was more strict, then it would more of a deterrent.

You know what, you are right. We should execute people who steal groceries from a grocery store. Public outrage is a deterrent to stricter laws.

Side: Against
1 point

Teenagers are mainly kids who need to be asked, "What is bothering you?" Rather than just punishing them for something they thought was right. Speaking on behalf of modern teenagers, we need to be taught by our parents and learn to do good things. We also shouldn't be punished for things we were forced to do by someone else (for example: an adult wanting revenge).

Side: Against
1 point

You really want to piss off a demographic and start some conflict? The teenagers are a great place to start. What with being angry, unstable, and unsure of their own futures(for the most part) They're the most likely to rage. Push them far enough, and you'll be sure to see a lot more Columbine massacres.

Side: Against
VinceX(24) Disputed
2 points

Would it not be better for a teenager to become more educated to make the morally right choices than to give a slap on the hand for whenever a crime is comitted, especially for repeat offenses?

Side: For
Warlin(1212) Disputed
2 points

Would it not be better for a teenager to become more educated to make the morally right choices than to give a slap on the hand for whenever a crime is comitted, especially for repeat offenses?

Sure, but stricter punishment isn't going to achieve that. Do you even realize how broken our system is right now?

Now, smarter punishment, I'm all for. But hiking up punishment for kids who are already confused and disoriented as it is is just asking for trouble.

Side: Against

Minors are a protected class and the age of consent is set at 18, so, a minor does not have full maturity, therefore, should not be jailed.

Side: Against