Should the age of criminality be raised?
 

England's children's commissioner says it should! I agree as I think 10 year-olds don't always fully comprehend the consequences of their actions! Do you agree?

It's 10 now is it? it's hard to say really cos every case is different, generally speaking I'd say yeah raise the age but things like the Venables/thompson case should be treated different I think.

Yes, the age is 10 and they are thinking of raising it to 12. Maybe, more serious cases like Venables/Thompson should be treated differently though, as you say!

No it shouldnt it should be lowered if it was to change. You have been to school from that age so you should know better. You do the crime you do the time. No excuses.

10 is quite young, my daughter is nearly 10 and I always know where she is, she's not allowed go off un supervised anyway to be able to commit crimes. I'm guessing that the 10 year olds who do commit crimes are ones who are left to their own devices and in that case the parents should be held responsible for neglecting their parenting duties

Maybe if parents were prosecuted instead - they would be more inclined to supervise their children better!

yeah definitely

yeh I agree with that more accountability for neglectful parenting badly needed

Venables/Thompson should have been rehabilitated instead of dumped into a young offenders institute and then released ... its a disaster waiting to happen and they couldn't have learned any social skills or know what normality is.

This.

Are you on glue?...you'd normally want them hanging from the rafters:shocked:

I agree with that - but assume that this was done/attempted whilst in the YOI. If it was - it seems to have failed in the case of Venables though!

I do :joker: But realistically its not gonna happen

I would raise it to 70.

So we raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14 but then prosecute people under that age for serious crimes? Where do you draw the line as to what is serious?

Surely then the system is best left as it is, because most children under 16 do not get prosecuted unless the offence they have committed is fairly serious. In most cases they get a police caution issued by the police and removed from their records at an apprpriate time either 2 years or at age 18.

Often if paperwork from the police is sent to the CPS, a prosecution wont be forthcoming because its deemed to be not in the public interest to pursue criminal charges agaisnt young offenders.


They werent dumped in Young Offenders Institutes though thats the problem they were placed into Local Authority Childrens Secure Units, a big difference. They were Rehabilitated before release at 18, the Judge stated that, before authorising their Licences, "they had been rehabilitated and to transfer them to adult prison would be inhumane".

Fair point Shasown maybe in cases of kids between 10 and 14 both the kids and parents should be investigated to decide who should take responsibility

Looks like its a no, then!

10 years old is way too low! Id say 12 or 13, that makes more sense at least to be considered. Anything lower is way too young

I dont know why that has never been considered. Because when you have decided to have a child, you really should take the responibility, until you are a CERtain age.

My only problem with that is, parents hands are tied these days. MEaning they arent allowed to raise their children without interference and constant scrutiny. They get sent to jail for disciplining their kids. And I am all for disciplining, as long as its moderate. BUt they just cant. And that is another problem to consider. So you cant put it all on the parents.

I think it should be bumped up really but only a year or two. I like Wombai's suggestion or persecuting parents although it would have to be implemented carefully as not to punish the good parents (As the cause of bad behavior doesn't always stem from parents).

I think child criminals above the age should be handled more carefully, they should focus on rehibilitation as it's more likely to work on them as children and it decreases the chance of reoffending.

Nice idea in theory, in practice it would be impossible to administer, who would you place the blame on in one parent families, the parent that is there or the absent member? What about when one parent works away a lot and the other isnt really the best at coping? What would happen if the child was actually full of devilment as they used to say? Not evil at heart just refused to listen to authority, and just did things to see why they shouldnt? Some kids are like that.

Also wouldnt bad parents who were prosecuted for failing to adequately supervise their children then simply lock their children in the house, or potentially worse just abuse the children even worse if they had to pay a financial penalty for the actions of their children. What about children in care who would you punish then?

Basically the idea comes down to punishment, its not about education or rehabilitation, its not even about responsibility for any crimes that children do commit, because lets face it children have committed serious crimes in the past and will continue to do so.

If you believe that children under the age of 12 or even 14 are not criminally responsible then why the outcry over the children involved in the Bulger case? It was stated in their defence during the trial that both boys were fully aware of right and wrong. It was their understanding of relating this basic principle to their own actions that they had problems comprehending. This was excused in part because they were as classified by psychologists as being educationally subnormal. Does this not then point to the educational system being at least part in fault?

If then they werent responsible for the murder, why do people insist that their identities, or at least the new identity of Jon Venables be made known? He has been accused of a serious crime and is awaiting legal proceedings for that crime. However if it does go to trial by jury, the knowledge that he was previously known as jon venables and his previous crimes will obviously sway any juror and prejudice his chances of a fair trial on the new allegations.

If they did raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10-12 it would also mean that Venables and Thompson would have had claims against the Ministry of Justice against their sentence and then for the lifting of their licences.

Children dont come with manuals, what works with one child can sometimes have a counterproductive effect on another.

Indeed prosecuting parents instead could raise many ethical questions and create endless problems - but something needs to be done! It does seem that treating cases individually, taking into account a detailed history of the child and family situation, as opposed to having a blanket rule would be the way to go, and taking into account that the parents are not always to blame, as suggested by Dezzy.

But there do seem to be an increasing amount of parents, particularly on large housing estates, that allow their children to pretty much run wild and do what they like, often making other people's lives a misery. These parents need to be forced to take responsibility - and they should be held accountable.

I think both parents should be held accountable whether or not the parents live together, or whether or not the father has been involved in their lives. Perhaps the message will get through to absent fathers, who take no responsibility, that they have a duty of care - whether they want to or not! Because the fact that the fathers ignore their children is a big part of the problem!

Personally I have mixed feelings about the Venables/Thompson case. No doubt what they did was atrocious and unforgivable - can't imagine how hard it has been for the parents to live with knowing how he suffered - but I still find myself feeling uncomfortable at the way adults were baying for their blood. I recently saw an opinion on a site of someone who thought they should have been executed - and I found that very difficult to justify!

Demonstating a knowledge of knowing the difference between right and wrong - does not always mean they fully understand the relationship between that and their own actions. It is very complicated!

Thats pretty much the system we currently use, when the police are dealing with juveniles, the social services have to be informed, whether or not they are in attendance for any interview with the juvenile.

Once paperwork moves from the police to the CPS or in Scotland to the Procurator Fiscal, they also get in touch with Social workers as well.

In Scotland the system is slightly different from England and Wales. If the case wasnt of a serious nature, eg vandalism anti social behaviour and the offender wasnt a persistant offender, the case would be referred to the Childrens Reporter and it would be reviewed by the Childrens Panel. This is a panel of three members of the public who have received training in dealing with problems involving children, its overseen by a member of the Childrens Reporter. they have the power to order supervision, fostering, parental training etc. They have the same power as the Sheriff, (cross between a judge and a magistrate) and if their decisions are challenged it will be referred back to the sheriff basically to rubber stamp their decision.

For more serious offences or for persistant offending the PF and the Childrens Reporter could refer the offence(s) straight to the sheriff, in which case again Social Workers, Educational Specialists etc are involved they would have to prepare a report for the court detailing the persons background, educational needs etc and also recommendations on how to deal with it.

Sheriff hears the case then again gets in touch with social services this time a social worker from the Justice office would prepare a report after interviewing the offender and they would make sentence recommendations.

In England If the young person has got into trouble for committing minor offences, such as anti-social behaviour, they may be dealt with outside the court system. Police and local authorities can use legal orders, such as anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) or child safety orders to punish them and control their behaviour. These restrict how children and their parents must behave. If it is the child’s first or second minor offence, as long as they admit that they committed the crime, the police can give them reprimands or warnings.

If the offence is more serious or for repeat offenders the next step up is the Youth Court, again specially trained magistrates who will deal with childrens offences. Punishments up to and including 2 years in a young offenders institute can be awarded, but more often than not arent, following recommendations from specialists eg social workers, educational specialists, psychologists etc. Most punishments are not custodial, and tend to involve some form of rehabilitation, again orders can be made to parents regarding care etc of the children. More serious offences again would be heard in the Crown Court.

As you can see the system is already set up to take into account parents failings etc. Its just some serious crimes(rapes and murders etc) go straight to Crown Court and you dont get to hear of the success stories where the systems work and the kids dont reoffend. What you do hear about is where the kids do reoffend or more serious crimes have been committed.

Kids have already got a blank cheque to commit crimes and get away with mamby pamby sentences.....No it should not be raised.

Each case should be decided on its merits by assessing the child concerned and determining mental state and awareness.........

Thats the way the current system works......