Rebuttals

Studies in neurobiology also show that adolescents’ brain function reach maturity only at around
16 years old, affecting their reasoning and impulse control. Research also has shown that
children who are in dysfunctional families and those exposed to violence experience toxic stress
which damages the brain’s architecture. Because the brain of the child is still maturing, and some
children at risk even have delayed brain development, these children would then be susceptible
to coercion and exploitation of adults.

The state has the responsibility to cater one of their most important assets to nation-building,
which are the children and the youth themselves.

The government can fiat that they have the resources to make these happen. But if they fail to
mechanize their proposal, than they ultimately fail to win in this debate.

To brand children as criminals removes the responsibility and accountability from adults who
have failed them. Children in conflict with the law are victims of circumstance, mostly because
of poverty; and because they are not able to access a caring, nurturing and protective
environment.

The current JJWA law does not let children in conflict with the law go without measures of
discipline and accountability. Rather, it provides these children the rehabilitation, and encourages
reparation for their wrongdoings. Further, the law was already amended in 2012 - children
between 12 and 15 who commit serious crimes are subject to intensive interventions in
institutions. Further changes will only serve to weaken the system of prevention of juvenile
offending and rehabilitation. 

Alternative,

Stronger implementation of the current law which is 9344 or the “Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act” 

Three layers

Educational Opportunities

- because if they are actually busy educating themselves

Rehab Activities
- Activities that will realign or reintegrate from the society.

Providing some of their basic necessities

- Council the family and give them some basic necessities

We on the opposition side firmly believe on the idea and framework of restorative justice, which
is an approach to justice that focuses on the harm caused by crime while holding the offender
responsible for their actions, by providing an opportunity for the parties directly affected by the
crime.

While the government side is pushing on the idea of punitive justice, which an offender breaks
the law, justice requires that they suffer in return, and that the response to a crime is proportional
to the offence. Now, allow me to ask you panel, which is better for the children?

A framework that helds them accountable for their actions at the same time reintegrating them
through reconstructive activities

Or a framework that punishes them through this so called criminal liability?

It is for you to answer.

Detaining children will not teach them accountability for their actions. In order to maximize their
potential to contribute to nation-building, children must grow up in a caring, nurturing and
protective environment. All of these are present in side opposition.

We get that in our worst case, we don’t instill the greatest fear to the children that they would be
held criminally liable but at the very least on our side we do not get the potential harms of the
government.

Which are:

a. actively destroying their future because of the records imposed by the criminal liability

and
b. harms that doesn’t decrease the crime rate rather allow more exploitation.

Branding children as criminals removes accountability from adults who are responsible for
safeguarding them. If children who have been exploited by criminal syndicates are penalized
instead of the adults who abused them, we fail to uphold the rights and well-being of children

Goals:

Where the children and their future are better off

- On our side

Where the children’s reintegration to the society better of

Where the re-offense of the juvenile kids least likely to happen.

Compare the 2 worlds:

Depth of Analysis

Engagement

Goal Fulfillment