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

[Jay.]

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

[GommeInc]

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.

[Casanova]

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.

[Jay.]

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.