PROSCUTE TEENAGERS AS ADULT FOR CRIMINAL OFFENSES

DISAGREEMENT
It is widely understood that serious offenses, such as homicide, often are tried in adult criminal
courts. In fact, for as long as there have been juvenile courts, mechanisms have existed to allow
the transfer of some youth into the adult system. During the early 1990s, under a set of faulty
assumptions about a coming generation of “super-predators,” 40 states passed legislation to send
even more juveniles into the adult courts for a growing array of offenses and with fewer
procedural protections. The super-predators, wrote John J. DiIulio in 1995, “will do what comes
‘naturally’: murder, rape, rob, assault, burglarize, deal deadly drugs, and get high.”
From 1989 to 1992, drug offense cases were more likely to be judicially waived to adult courts
than any other offense category.
International juvenile criminal trials were based on Standard Minimum Rules for the
Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules) which listed principles:
1. Non-discrimination against children of criminal acts perpetrators in the criminal justice
process.
2. Determination of the child age limit in criminal liability against children
3. Imprisonment used only as the last effort.
4. Diversion was done with the approval of the child or parent/guardian.
5. Protection of child perpetrator’s privacy
6. Regulation of juvenile justice process must not contradict against this principle
Legal protection of children involves institutions and an adequate legal instrument. The
enactment of Act No. 3 of 1997 on Juvenile Justice is a solid legal pitfall in order to provide
child protection. This legislation has determined the difference in treatment in procedural law,
starting at the beginning of investigation until the case investigation at children's court.
Although it was written in the preamble of Act No. 3 of 1997 on Juvenile Court that the purpose
of protection in child court was to warrant the child’s growth, the provisions stipulated in Act
No. 3 of 1997 on Juvenile Court felt more incriminating. There are provisions which are
inconsistent between Act No. 3 of 1997 on Juvenile Court to the Criminal Code, one of which
was issues of conditional discharge
Even for probation was defined differently between crimes and violations under the Criminal
Code. Similarly, in Act No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights, child protection issues received
considerable attention, as stated in Article 52 paragraph (2) which asserts that children rights are
human rights and, for its interests, the children rights was recognized and protected by law even
in the womb.
Age limit based on the decision of the Constitutional Court is that the lower limit of the age of
children who can be held criminal responsibility is 12 years old.
Children who are categorized as criminals are children who are dealing with specific legal cases.
Although still classified as children category, the law must ensure the protection of children who
are in the legal process. This is a consequence of the provisions of Article 28B of the
Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia which explained that "every child have the right to
live, grow and develop and is entitled to protection from violence and discrimination"
Then the teens voluntarily follow the consultation and or education that is appropriate and social
activities. If the teens are successful in this program, the prosecutor does not prosecute the case
and will not be noted in the case file on the act
For example, children can be prosecuted as adults in Brazil will dramatically undermine
children’s rights and could result in teenagers being sent to notoriously dangerous adult prisons
where they could face horrendous violence, abuse and grooming age a person could be
prosecuted as an adult from 18 to 16 years old. If passed, the legislation would mean some
children would be tried as adults, face the same criminal penalties and could be sent to adult
prison.

AGREEMENT
Only rarely does an under-18 juvenile defendant wind up in adult court. Yet some activists
would put an end to that practice in every instance, no matter the crime and no matter the
criminal. But can they really prove that adult punishment is never appropriate for juveniles
who’ve committed adult crimes?
When courts take away trial and sentencing options, it is not possible to provide justice in every
case.
The overwhelming majority of juvenile crimes, from petty vandalism to violent homicide, are
handled by the juvenile justice system, not adult courts. The separation of the two systems is a
recognition of the differences between juveniles and adults and offers juveniles, by default,
greater opportunities for forgiveness and redemption. Juvenile courts exist, in large part, to
rehabilitate youth who’ve done wrong.

But that’s not possible or appropriate in every case. Some juveniles commit crimes so horrific in
their depravity that justice could not be carried out in the juvenile system. Other crimes, and their
perpetrators, evince maturity commensurate with adult punishment.

An example spanning both classes was 16-year-old Sarah Johnson’s plot to murder her parents
and pin the crime on an intruder. Her case was transferred to adult court, and Johnson was
convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

In the post-adjudication stage, some situations which often met by children with mild cases and
the sentences short, many are processed up to the level of the court, and some were sentenced to
imprisonment and mingled with adults in Juvenile Justice System Through Diversion And
Restorative Justice Policy. This situation of potential or even in real terms has an impact on the
poor condition of the child in the process of education, mentoring, coaching, detention and
imprisonment. For example, the declining quality of health, education stagnation due to
disconnection of the school up to psychological discomfort could potentially become a serious
offender as a result of interaction during the supervision and guidance in correctional centers, as
well as in custody or prison.

Performance enhancing drungs in sport should be legalized

AGREEMENT
Bengt Kayser, MD, PhD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, wrote:

"Antidoping policies exist, in theory, to encourage fair play. However, we believe they are
unfounded, dangerous, and excessively costly...

We believe that rather than drive doping underground, use of drugs should be permitted under
medical supervision.

Legalisation of the use of drugs in sport might even have some advantages. The boundary
between the therapeutic and ergogenic - ie, performance enhancing - use of drugs is blurred at
present and poses difficult questions for the controlling bodies of antidoping practice and for
sports doctors. The antidoping rules often lead to complicated and costly administrative and
medical follow-up to ascertain whether drugs taken by athletes are legitimate therapeutic agents
or illicit...

Furthermore, legalisation of doping, we believe, would encourage more sensible, informed use of
drugs in amateur sport, leading to an overall decline in the rate of health problems associated
with doping. Finally, by allowing medically supervised doping, the drugs used could be assessed
for a clearer view of what is dangerous and what is not...

Acknowledging the importance of rules in sports, which might include the prohibition of doping,
is, in itself, not problematic. However, a problem arises when the application of these rules is
beset with diminishing returns: escalating costs and questionable effectiveness."

It would be much easier to eliminate the anti-doping rules than to eliminate doping. The current
policy against doping has proved expensive and difficult to police. In the near future it may
become impossible to police...

Because doping is illegal, the pressure is to make performance enhancers undetectable, rather
than safe. Performance enhancers are produced or bought on the black market and administered
in a clandestine, uncontrolled way with no monitoring of the athlete's health. Allowing the use of
performance enhancers would make sport safer as there would be less pressure on athletes to
take unsafe enhancers and a pressure to develop new safe performance enhancers and to make
existing enhancers more effective at safe dosages...

The removal of doping controls would have major benefits: less cheating, increased solidarity
and respect between athletes, more focus on sport and not on rules.

[I]n order to justify the current doping controls, these arguments have to justify the ban's yearly
multi-million dollar cost, and the intangible costs, and they must outweigh the benefits we would
get if we abolished doping controls. We should focus on health of athletes, not performance
enhancement.

Rather than attempting to detect undetectable enhancers, we should spend our limited resources
on evaluating health and fitness to compete. There are good reasons to allow performance
enhancement, to make sport fairer (in the sense that the rules are equally applied) and to narrow
the gap between the cheaters and the honest athletes. It would provide a better spectacle, be safer
and less coercive."

DISAGREEMENT
Thomas H. Murray, PhD, President of the Hastings Center, in the chapter "Sports Enhancement"
published in the 2008-2009 From Birth to Death and Bench to Clinic: The Hastings Center
Bioethics Briefing Book for Journalists, Policymakers, and Campaigns, wrote:

"There are several reasons to ban performance-enhancing drugs: respect for the rules of sports,
recognition that natural talents and their perfection are the point of sports, and the prospect of an
'arms race' in athletic performance...

The rules in each sport in effect determine which characteristics among all possible sources of
difference influence who wins and who loses...

Many innovations that would surely improve performance are banned outright. An athlete who
showed up for the Boston Marathon wearing Rollerblades would be wheeled right off the start
line...

Rules are changed at times to preserve a sport. Basketball banned goaltending—swatting the ball
away just as it was about to go into the hoop—when players became so tall and athletic that they
could stand by the basket and prevent most shots from having a chance to go in...

When performance-enhancing drugs have the power to overcome differences in natural talents
and the willingness to sacrifice and persevere in the quest to perfect those talents, we cannot
avoid confronting the question, What do we value in sport? Emerging technologies—from
hypoxic chambers and carbon fiber prostheses to genetic manipulation—will force us [to]
consider what, after all, is the point of sport?...Sports that revere records and historical
comparisons (think of baseball and home runs) would become unmoored by drug-aided athletes
obliterating old standards. Athletes, caught in the sport arms race, would be pressed to take more
and more drugs, in ever wilder combinations and at increasingly higher doses...

The drug race in sport has the potential to create a slow-motion public health catastrophe.
Finally, we may lose whatever is most graceful, beautiful, and admirable about sport."

Though logical, such acceptance or legalization of performance-enhancing aids has serious

ramifications. I predict that a new subset of drugs - for which I propose the term
'lusuceuticals'...will arise. These new drugs will follow the model of commercially successful
products labeled 'nutraceuticals' and 'cosmeceuticals' that have already crossed the sharply
defined boundaries of standard pharmaceuticals designed to treat diseases...

But will lusu-chemists...limit themselves to much safer anabolic drugs, now that detectability
will be of no concern? Or will they head into much more questionable directions, such as growth
hormone analogs that will lead to 71/2-foot-tall pole vaulters or basketball players?...

Whatever we do in terms of legalizing drug abuse in athletics, we are heading in the direction of
changing the Olympics from a competition of athletes to one of chemists, where the emphasis
will shift abruptly from body to mind...

As a chemist, I ought to welcome such a prospect, because the mind does not deteriorate as
rapidly as the body. Nevertheless, I dread such a future.
THBT POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE TOO MUCH INFLUENCE ON DEMOCRATIC
ELECTIONS

AGREEMENT
But this is just the latest in a series of worrying blows to the health of democracy. On the surface,
everything still seems fine. A few years ago, the World Values Survey, a large-scale
international research project, asked more than 73,000 people in 57 countries if they believed
democracy was a good way to govern a country – and nearly 92% said yes.
We discuss and debate the outcome of a referendum without discussing its principles. This
should be surprising. In a referendum, we ask people directly what they think when they have not
been obliged to think – although they have certainly been bombarded by every conceivable form
of manipulation in the months leading up to the vote
Building on this research, I recently studied the extent to which political parties sway public
opinion. I was primarily focused on understanding situations in which people are more likely to
follow their party’s lead, and situations in which people abandon their party’s policy positions.

DISAGREEMENT
But that same survey found that in the past 10 years, around the world, there has been a
considerable increase in calls for a strong leader “who does not have to bother with parliament
and elections” – and that trust in governments and political parties has reached a historical low. It
would appear that people like the idea of democracy but loathe the reality.
But the problem is not confined to referendums: in an election, you may cast your vote, but you
are also casting it away for the next few years. This system of delegation to an elected
representative may have been necessary in the past – when communication was slow and
information was limited – but it is completely out of touch with the way citizens interact with
each other today.
Public policy problems and solutions are often complex. Most people do not have the time or
motivation to research the intricacies of every issue domain, and as such, they often look to their
party
Perhaps more troubling is the reversed party cue condition where people follow their party’s lead
even when their party takes a stance that is completely out-of-step with reality. Comparing the
“No Party Cue” to the “Reversed Party Cue” situations, Republicans are more opposed to cutting
income
taxes and the Student Success Act when told their party opposes such measures. Democrats
follow the reversed party cue as well, but only on the tax issue.
The results are shown in the bottom bar of each figure (“Reversed Cue + Important”). It appears
that when people think an issue is personally important, they do not blindly follow their party’s
lead. The effect of the reversed party cue is not only eliminated when coupled with the
importance statement,
When political parties take stands on policies and endorse candidates, they provide short-cuts to
help us make sense of politics. People seem quite eager to follow their party’s lead and our
willingness to follow our party can, at times, make us look foolish. And as noted above, these
effects are accentuated when parties are polarized on the issue.