Should Violent Teen Sentence as Adult?

I negate that juveniles charged with violent crimes should be tried and punished as adults. To ensure there are no misconceptions in interpreting the resolution, I will provide the following definitions. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law defines juvenile as an individual who is under an age fixed by law at which he or she would be charged as an adult for a criminal act. Many state justice systems consider 17 and under a juvenile. In North Carolina, a juvenile is fifteen years and younger. Black Law's Dictionary defines violent crime as a crime that violates the rights of one's person or property. Thomson Gale Legal Encyclopedia defines an adult as a person who by virtue of attaining a certain age, generally eighteen, is regarded in the eyes of the law as being able to manage his or her own affairs. My value will be Sanctity of Human Life, which is important because every human has rights, dignity, and value. This value relates to the resolution because by trying and punishing juveniles as adults undermines the value of today's youth and what they could become. One mistake should not ruin the rest of a fifteen-year-old boy or girl's life. My criterion will be the protection of rights. This criterion is important because the rights of juveniles in the justice system, such as confidential records and rehabilitation services, are kept in place to help juveniles continue with their future. This criterion achieves my value premise because how well one's rights are protected can have a big impact on the sanctity or worth of one's life. My first contention is that juveniles are not capable of meaningful participation in his or her defense. A Criminal Justice Magazine article states, "Just as the capacities of some adults are limited by their mental disorders so, too, may some youths' participation in the legal process be limited by their as-yet underdeveloped capacities." The article goes on to address the juvenile's understanding of the law and ability to assist counsel