Should the age of criminal responsibility be raised, or even lowered?[ENDS 15/06/2011

http://i734.photobucket.com/albums/w...n/Untitled.jpg




Should the age of criminal responsibility be raised, or even lowered?



If you are at a criminally responsible age, then you can be put on trial and charged with crimes. The age is currently 10 in England however this age varies greatly all over the world. In Scotland it's 8, in France it's 17, in some US states it's 6 whilst in others it's 18.

Recently there have been calls for the age to be raised in the UK as it has one of the lowest criminal responsibility ages in Europe. While the age is currently 8 in Scotland, legislation is being passed to raise it up by four years.

The argument for raising the age:

By criminalising children, an already bad situation is made worse. If children are labeled as criminals early, will they grow up to become even worse criminals?

Are children who commit crime just victims of circumstances for the mostpart? Can we blame them for how/where they were brought up?

Children don't have the emotional maturity to be responsible for their actions to the law.


The argument against raising the age:

Children should be punished at an early age so as to learn the difference between right and wrong.

Children should know the difference between right and wrong.

By holding the child responsible possibly they could be rehabilitated. If children don't get punished early on, then will they continue to commit crime and become an even worse problem as they get older?



So what do you think? Should the age be raised? Or possibly even lowered?

Debate!

This Debate will end on the 15/06/2011. Once the debate has ended the top contributer to this debate will recieve a month of VIP in a colour of their choice

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nKa-dM7PvE...WA/RH0M5gyrESU

I think it's shocking that it is at such a low age, I don't think that it does anything for the child to be put through all of that however the argument could be that it would teach them a lesson but seriously a child at the age of 8 as a criminal are you having a laugh. As said above they should know the difference between right and wrong but maybe not into the depth that people expect. I think it all depends on the back ground of the child. I think it should be raised to maybe 13ish?

Well just look at the likes of Jon Venables. He abducted, tortured and murdered a 2 year old boy. Of course he should be held accountable for his actions. At 10 you know the differences between right and wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nar

I think it's shocking that it is at such a low age, I don't think that it does anything for the child to be put through all of that however the argument could be that it would teach them a lesson but seriously a child at the age of 8 as a criminal are you having a laugh. As said above they should know the difference between right and wrong but maybe not into the depth that people expect. I think it all depends on the back ground of the child. I think it should be raised to maybe 13ish?

---

Jon Venables and Robert Thompson are a prime example of wicked children who did mean harm and who knew exactly what they were doing was wrong. If somebody, usually a left wing sociologist, wants to tell me that these two children (now men) didn't mean to commit the crime in which they did then I think that just shows the appalling positions some people get themselves in when trying to excuse the acts of the wicked.

I find the age of 8 to 10 a fair age for somebody to be tried for criminal activities.

As a firm supporter in the death penalty I would say the age for this aspect would be centred around 16 to 18.

I think it should be lowered as I think morally, children are more advanced than they are given credit for. I think Scotland's 8 is about right. Around my area, there are currently children around about 8 years old who smoke, do drugs like cannabis, wreck cars and basically just terrorise the neighbourhood because that's the behaviour of the older gang members that they look up to. I think the justice system, if done properly, can be just the thing that's needed to keep them from growing up into those older gang members.

Well, at the time of writing, I'm the first post...


"Children should be punished at an early age so as to learn the difference between right and wrong."
Parents should provide a good level of knowledge about the law system, and in that the thin line between right and wrong.
Yes, often, the worst offenders are those who have been mistreated as children, or are orphans. This makes them exempt from the my previous point. If the offender in question is homeless, then it is expectable that they would commit a crime. In these cases, their imprisonment often won't affect a family, and rarely good friends.

"By holding the child responsible possibly they could be rehabilitated. If children don't get punished early on, then will they continue to commit crime and become an even worse problem as they get older?"
Rehabilitation doesn't always work. A rule or punishment is definitely not going to be 100% accurate, and sometimes this attempt can force a minor into (in the extreme cases) running away.
If when they grow up, they continue to break the law, they can be swiftly put into prison for a substantial amount of time. Usually, this happens, regardless of whether they committed crimes at an early age.

From my statements, it's probably obvious I don't want it to raise. That said, I really think it would be stupid to lower it, especially in the awful Scotland, 8 years old.
In a country such as the before-mentioned France, I think the age needs to go down, because 17 is practically the age of adulthood. As a general rule, each country has a normal age of when children need to be raised with responsibility. In the UK this age is around 13. At this time, criminal responsibility should be introduced. Some countries could do with a raise, and some need it lowered by many years.

I think it should be anywhere between 8-10 if I'm honest. I knew what I was doing when I was 8, obviously eight year olds are a lot more immature than someone aged 20, but they still understand the difference between right and wrong, and if they don't they obviously have other issues which would need to be looked at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Narnat,

I think it's shocking that it is at such a low age, I don't think that it does anything for the child to be put through all of that however the argument could be that it would teach them a lesson but seriously a child at the age of 8 as a criminal are you having a laugh. As said above they should know the difference between right and wrong but maybe not into the depth that people expect. I think it all depends on the back ground of the child. I think it should be raised to maybe 13ish?

---

Narnat, are you being serious?

"CCTV evidence from the New Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle taken on 12 February 1993 showed Thompson and Venables casually observing children, apparently selecting a target" This clearly shows, both of these 10 year old's planned their actions out in advance, they knew what they were doing, and they should be treated the same as anyone else who performed these crimes. But, hey, since they were under the age of 13 at the time, they can't possibly be held responsible for their actions, can they?

" As said above they should know the difference between right"

If the child knows what they are doing, then they are accountable for their actions.

I only read the starting post so sorry for any repitition.

My opinion is it should be raised to at least 16. Why? Well..

16 is the legal age for sex + marriage + smoking. The law clearly sees 16 as an age of responsibility and decision awareness.

At 16 you can also leave school. I think 16 is the age where you are mature enough to understand the law, why it's there and what will happen if you break it.
At 10 you probably don't understand much other than a policeman coming and saying "don't be naughty or you'll be arrested".

Why is 10 seen as the age of understanding and decision making when its breaking the law but 16 or 18 is when it is making the law?

They should be all the same imo. And no I'm not saying 10 year olds should be allowed to marry, I think that if the law says we can make informed decisions on breaking the law at 10 but not marriage or sex until 16 - which it does - it contradicts itself. Yes were fully aware were breaking the law when we are 10 but we can't have sex until were 16 because were not informed enough to make that decision...right.

Why should we need to change it at all?

Either keep it at 10 [in the case of the UK] or lower it TO 10 [in most other cases].

Children who break the rules need to realise that what they are doing is wrong, people could easilly abuse the system by telling a 15 year old to carry out an act for money, the 15 year old would know it to be wrong but do it anyway. The child would then not be punished, this could easilly lead them down the wrong path even further with them thinking they can get away with anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syphon

Why should we need to change it at all?

Either keep it at 10 [in the case of the UK] or lower it TO 10 [in most other cases].

Children who break the rules need to realise that what they are doing is wrong, people could easilly abuse the system by telling a 15 year old to carry out an act for money, the 15 year old would know it to be wrong but do it anyway. The child would then not be punished, this could easilly lead them down the wrong path even further with them thinking they can get away with anything.

---

You can still be punished without being tried as a criminal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Right-Wing

I only read the starting post so sorry for any repitition.

My opinion is it should be raised to at least 16. Why? Well..

16 is the legal age for sex + marriage + smoking. The law clearly sees 16 as an age of responsibility and decision awareness.

---

At the age of 16 you will have better judgement, that's obvious. But you understand the difference between righ or wrong at a much younger age. Are you actually comparing the maturity it takes to drive with the most basic principles that are right and wrong which even a toddler can understand.

Quote:

---

At 16 you can also leave school. I think 16 is the age where you are mature enough to understand the law, why it's there and what will happen if you break it.

---

Again, yes, at the age of 16 you will have time to think about what you want to do in the future, what career path you want to take which are big decisions, but again, it's a failed comparison to understanding why killing someone is wrong.

Quote:

---

At 10 you probably don't understand much other than a policeman coming and saying "don't be naughty or you'll be arrested".

---

I understood a lot more than that at the age of 10, I knew if I had done something wrong and I'm sure every normal child would understand that taking the life of someone is wrong, no matter what age.

Quote:

---

Why is 10 seen as the age of understanding and decision making when its breaking the law but 16 or 18 is when it is making the law?

---

Because those decisions at 16 and 18 take a mature mind to understand whereas right and wrong are basic principles taught to us at a very young age.

Quote:

---

They should be all the same imo. And no I'm not saying 10 year olds should be allowed to marry, I think that if the law says we can make informed decisions on breaking the law at 10 but not marriage or sex until 16 - which it does - it contradicts itself. Yes were fully aware were breaking the law when we are 10 but we can't have sex until were 16 because were not informed enough to make that decision...right.

---

People can't have sex legally until the age of 16 because they are going through puberty, if the legal age of consent was 10, we would have a problem with paedophiles.

I still can't comprehend how you can compare being mature enough to drive, to understanding your own actions and whether they are good or bad decisions.

I've read a few posts, and as far as I can tell people have gotten onto the subject of young kids committing murder.
Heres my view :

I think the age of which you can be charged as an adult should be 16. Why? Because at 16 you know your rights from your wrongs (to a higher extent then younger kids). You also make more life changing decisions, which puts you at a more mature spot. At 7 or 10 you don't make the decision to become a lawyer, or an accountant, or an IT person. You're mentally not prepared to make that decision.

Now while kids are raised, they learn their rights from wrongs.
Don't eat cookies before dinner. (Kind of a dumb one, but I was taught that)
Don't steal things.
Don't hurt people.
Don't break the law.

Okay yes at 10 you're told not to break the law, but at 10, I didn't even know the law. I didn't know what was illegal. I didn't know sneaking a sip out of dad's beer while he's not looking was illegal. I was care-free wanted to be with friends. I was in 3rd grade for pete's sake.

Now i'm 17. I know the law, I know killing someone is illegal, and drinking underage is illegal.

Now does this exclude these young kids from federal punishments for high crimes? No. Clearly you can't slap a kid on the wrist if he commits murder. You'd be insane to do that. A kid who commits murder whether or not the kid knew it was wrong, and/or illegal should get the full punishment.

That's like letting a guy who hit someone in the head with a sledgehammer who not knowing the guy would die, be free of any charges.

High crimes (Grand Theft Auto, Murder, other serious felonies).. Yes the kid should have the full justice system thrown at him.

Misdemeanors (Shoplifting, Sneaking drinks of alcohol, etc).. No, these can easily be resolved with a slap on the wrist, and giving them a firm talk about how thats wrong, and no real legal issues should be pursued.


-------
Already had the quick thought of someone asking me "Well, weren't you told not to kill other people?"
Directly I don't think many were "told" to not kill someone. At that point in life as a parent (looking at a parent's point of view, I didn't get anyone knocked up..) I'd assume my kid wouldn't know how to kill someone, or want to kill someone.

Of course with today's media, and availability of information, and access of this information, it isn't hard for a kid to get a hold of how to kill someone. I'm pretty sure, a quick google search, could prompt several answers and help a kid kill someone.

When I was young, I hardly knew what the computer was, I was out having fun in the sprinkler, and swimming and hanging with friends. However, a neglected kid, may not have friends, and may seek attention online, may be more resourceful at finding this information then I would be back when I was 10.

From a very early age you understand the word no. It's weird but my nephew is 18 months. He's currently learning to talk and only knows like 6 words and doesn't know how he's using them, before he knew how to speak any of that or before he could walk, he knew and still knows, the word no. If you say no - he will stop what he is doing. He might have a little hissy fit when you say no, but he will not continue to do what he was doing. Why? Because when he does, he is punished.

Once he's been put to bed or I've taken away his toys for messing with the TV controls and I said no but he didn't listen, next time I said no to the controls he stopped. At 18 months, he is being punished for his actions and knows right and wrong by the TV.

Then we get onto about 5 years of age and the child is in education. They are taught right and wrong within school and they are punished within school. The punishments are more severe in schools because they are capable of more serious wrong actions. The actions are punished and the child knows.

I think the age of 8 is the right age for a person to be held accountable for their actions, within reason. By law, all Primary Schools are forced to teach kids as young as 5 the basic aspects of the law. Not to steal, not to cause harm to someone else. Once taught they know the difference between right and wrong and they'll match those new laws they've learned to the other forbidden things within school or home they have been punished for. Someone at the age of 8 should be held responsible if they have broken a law they know about.

18? No way!

10 seems like a nice, wholesome number and at the age of 10 you should have at least some sense of right and wrong. It also depends what way they are labelled a "criminal" and the crime they have committed. Venables and Thompson are a prime example of true, child criminals as the crime they had committed was disgusting and they must have known what they were doing. Any 10 year old who senselessly kills like they did deserve the label of "criminal". What they did had some thought put into it. If a child accidentally kills then maybe the label could not be applied to them, but it all depends on remorse, the crime they committed etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay.

From a very early age you understand the word no. It's weird but my nephew is 18 months. He's currently learning to talk and only knows like 6 words and doesn't know how he's using them, before he knew how to speak any of that or before he could walk, he knew and still knows, the word no. If you say no - he will stop what he is doing. He might have a little hissy fit when you say no, but he will not continue to do what he was doing. Why? Because when he does, he is punished.

Once he's been put to bed or I've taken away his toys for messing with the TV controls and I said no but he didn't listen, next time I said no to the controls he stopped. At 18 months, he is being punished for his actions and knows right and wrong by the TV.

Then we get onto about 5 years of age and the child is in education. They are taught right and wrong within school and they are punished within school. The punishments are more severe in schools because they are capable of more serious wrong actions. The actions are punished and the child knows.

I think the age of 8 is the right age for a person to be held accountable for their actions, within reason. By law, all Primary Schools are forced to teach kids as young as 5 the basic aspects of the law. Not to steal, not to cause harm to someone else. Once taught they know the difference between right and wrong and they'll match those new laws they've learned to the other forbidden things within school or home they have been punished for. Someone at the age of 8 should be held responsible if they have broken a law they know about.

18? No way!

---

Mmm.. 8 is still too low. Primary school is like an american elementary i'd guess. In which you learn the fundamentals of law. I honestly, at eight, was in some program where we learned the fundamentals of the economy, and how to invest in money.. really? xD

If I were to give a good age, I still think 16 is good, but a more reasonable, 12. Pre-teen, before you are a teenager, you'd know right from wrong and be on a good track.

12 is my final answer.
16, now that I think of it is good, but it's also not good. It's older in life, and by then who knows what a child could do.
/finalanswer :3

16 is too high, teenagers are up to all sort of knife crime or whatever these days.

How are you comparing the law to the fundamentals of the economy and how to invest in money, the law is really simple when at the fundamentals and all the children DO understand the consequences, so why can't they be forced?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay.

16 is too high, teenagers are up to all sort of knife crime or whatever these days.

How are you comparing the law to the fundamentals of the economy and how to invest in money, the law is really simple when at the fundamentals and all the children DO understand the consequences, so why can't they be forced?

---

What i'm saying is, Is that, while you were learning the basics of the law, I was learning the basics of money management/economy crap.. :l
Will answer later, kind of rushed for time.

I am pretty sure at 8 you knew not to steal other peoples' things, not to murder or hurt anyone. Even your parents indirectly teach you that and because of that you should be punished when you do it!

Quote:

---

At 10 you probably don't understand much other than a policeman coming and saying "don't be naughty or you'll be arrested".

---

Children are a lot smarter than you give them credit for. 10 year olds are capable of more intelligent thought than simply 'don't be naughty or you'll be arrested.' They know the differences between right and wrong and its fact that children have made calculated murders etc. so they should be punished accordingly. I really can't see why people think 16 is an ok age. If a 15 year old murdered your loved one then do you think they should be let of scott free? :S

I would honestly lower it down from 10 to maybe 8 and 1/2 or 9. Since most children should know right from wrong at that age, we all knew its bad to hurt people, if not murder or seriously harm a person!

This thread digs a question up for me - Why is it actually so high at the moment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay.

This thread digs a question up for me - Why is it actually so high at the moment?

---

The current age is 10, which seems about right. It's just around the time you enter secondary school, hit puberty etc. 8 and 9 seems a bit low.

I think the age of criminal responsibilty should be 10 years old.

I think this because children have the full grasp of what is acceptable, even if at this age they don't have the full cognative skills to fully comprehend WHY someone might enforce such a thing.

Children are aware as young as three years old what is wrong, but in a basic grasp.
a toddler will know by facial expression and through memory what is judged as 'wrong' by their parent. They don't have a full understanding nor skill of reason to independantly judge what is wrong but can recognise when they have done wrong.

A young child at the age of five knows what is right or wrong, but doesn't fully grasp why. So they know under their parents judgement what they're allowed to do. Children also have a grasp of reality at this age - they can fully comprehend your manner, your voice tones and of course your body language. They are aware what you mean when you speak to them but won't grasp the larger words of your vocabulary.

At the age of eight a child now has their full judgemental skills. They can understand and REASON why something is wrong. They possess the skills in which they can deem something acceptable via the life skills they have obtained. They are able to stand with a lighter and judge "should I do this?" "why should I not?" "this is wrong"... unfortunately at this age children are still capable to not fully obtain what is deemed acceptable; what I mean is they may be a late starter/come from a home in which their life skills haven't been enforced.

I believe a child should have a criminal responsibilty at the age of ten because they possess all the mental capabilities of an adult. They have the full ability to reason, object, judge responsibilty and have the skills to choose - ie they have their own mind to PICK what they wish, to pick what they like and what they find wrong.

At the age of ten a child may not have the full social skills, mental capabilities nor a full grasp of their own intelligence; this is not to mean they can not recognise what is wrong and right! A child at this age is still immature, still susceptable to pressure and still able to be mis-led. But unfortunately at this age they have their own mind to choose what they wish, to reason on right and wrong and to enforce their opinion. This leads me to believe that a child should carry their own action from this age.

A child at ten is fully capable, although this is flawed, I have demonstrated why (above) they should still carry their responsibility. Just because a child is susceptible to peers, to suggestion or manipulation doesn't mean they can't fully grasp why they're being wrong? This is why they should answer to their action. Adults can still be fooled, manipulated and obstructed but they answer for their action. A child of ten is the same, but they lack the maturity.

At the age of eight-ten a child is fully able to understand what is expected from others, forsee what their action has affects wise and can judge other people's behaviour, which lacks before this age - you only realise someone is being bad by the judgement of an adult/peer's reaction. They understand social approval which on the downside means they understand the scorn and scold of their peer's/adults for their action.


I feel that children from the ages of ten to twelve shouldn't be jailed, they should be placed into a secure foster home instead of jail. This way they can learn from their action and they are punished by not being allowed to stay within their own home.

From twelve to sixteen I believe they should be placed into a secure residential care, in which they are cared for in a secure unit, with restricted access/luxuries and are taught more on social responsibilty as well as general schooling.

From seventeen to nineteen I believe they should be placed in a 'juvenile' jail.

upwards, a normal prison.

I think a normal prision should be for 16+ as there is currently a big problem with re-offenders, and a juvenile for 10-16 only if a 10 year old has done something really serious.