Federalism CP - Delta Force K Lab Federalism CP Alex...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Delta Force K Lab Federalism CP Alex Rosengarten 1/5 Federalism CP Federalism CP.....................................................................................................................1 NC burden counter interpretation.......................................................................................5 ........................................................................................................................................5 Note on the framework: I think that the ought as desirability framework should be replaced with a constitutionality standard that has a killer terminal impactthen the impact in the net benefit would link. The other option would be to keep the current framework and find evidence that says allowing states to define their own juvenial criminal laws makes punishments more effective. So far, Ive only found an article that says the opposite, and states why we need to have federal standards. Now that I mention it, that could make a good recidivism AC Delta Force K Lab Federalism CP Alex Rosengarten 2/5 NC Shell I negate, resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system The Oxford English dictionary states that ought is used to indicate a desirable state [desirability], Thus the value must be desirable criminal justice systems, because that is the most sensible resolutional end. Prefer this definition over obligation definitions of ought because criminal justice systems already assumes a framework of obligation to citizens, rendering such a value redundant. Instead, criminal justice systems should aim to be the most beneficiary. Furthermore, this approach removes all limits to improvements on criminal justice systems; it can become more and more desirable whereas obligation approaches exist only as a binary; by that I mean, they have either met their obligations, or they havent. This creates the best options for weighing impacts in the round, proving why this framework is better. Observation 1: in the status quo, different states have different criminal legal standards for juvenile prosecution and procedures. Fagan explains: JEFFREY FAGAN. January/April 1996. The Comparative Advantage of Juvenile Versus Criminal Court Sanctions on Recidivism among Adolescent Felony Offenders Law & Policy , pp 79 A comparison of the severity and effectiveness of juvenile and criminal court sanctions directly bears on the jurisdictional debate in several ways. First, there has been rapid change in statutes that determine the judicial forum lo adjudicate felony crimes by adolescents. Since 1978, nearly every state has passed laws to restrict the jurisdiction of the juvenile court (Feld 1987, 1993; Szymanski l987a, l987b; Wilson 1994). Some states have lowered the age of jurisdiction for criminal court, either for all offenders or for selected offense categories. Other states have expanded the basis for transfer...
View Full Document

Page1 / 5

Federalism CP - Delta Force K Lab Federalism CP Alex...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online