the Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill

[falkor]

the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford has spoken out against the current age of criminal responsibility in the House of Lords, claiming 10-year-olds are too young to understand the legal results of their actions.

The Right Reverend Stephen Cottrell made his remarks during the second reading of the Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill, which is designed to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 in England and Wales. In the house, he said that the current age of criminal responsibility "makes any possibility of rehabilitation or amendment of life that much harder."
He argued in support of the bill, introduced by Lord Dholakia, on the basis that society tends to judge adult responsibility as arriving at a much older age in most cases.
Read more: http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Bishop- ... z3z2J1jP5O
Follow us: @Essex_Chronicle on Twitter | essexchronicle on Facebook

[powdermonkey]

He's wrong. Any responsible and caring parent will have raised their child to know right from wrong and, by the age of 10, that child will know if his or her actions are wrong. As for criminal responsibility, a ten year old will also know that taking another person's belongings, taking things from a shop without paying, damaging things etc is wrong. The punishments, such as they are, are not exactly draconian as they consist of Community Resolutions or a warning letter. No one is suggesting they be imprisoned unless it's a very serious crime.

Venables and Thompson, the two children who murdered Jamie Bulger, knew at the time that what they were doing was wrong. The fact that they committed such a serious and horrific crime has, in my opinion, more to do with how they were raised than their age.

My daughter would have known right from wrong before she reached the age of 10. May be not the finer points of law, but she knew what was and wasn't acceptable behaviour.

The Right Reverend should stick to his job, that of encouraging people to believe in some mysterious, nebulous and imaginary being.

[falkor]

couldn't agree more with every word you said.

however

Currently the age of criminal responsibility in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is the lowest in all of Europe, in Scotland and Ireland it is 12, while outside the British Isles it is usually between 13 and 18.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has also called on parliament to raise the age in our country. ( same article )

as in Scotland and Ireland it is 12, that is obviously where this bloke is coming from

[JimmyRiddle]

So in other countries, what the hell do they do with criminals under 18 who can't be prosecuted in any way? Send them home? Detain them in a YOI on public safety grounds rather than a criminal conviction?

[falkor]

good question Jimmy

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/re ... 12901.html More than 670 children – some as young as just 10 years old - have been arrested for suspected gun crimes in London in the last three years. Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act found 1,549 children were arrested across the country for alleged firearm offences between 2013 and January 2016, with 506 charges brought by police. The offences involve guns, air weapons or imitation guns. The Metropolitan Police service arrested 679 children with the three year period, including 30 children under the age of 13 years old. A total of 212 children were charged with firearm offences in the same period, the force said. In 2015, the force arrested 227 children, compared with 193 in 2014 and 248 in 2013. Another 11 were detained in January 2016, the figures showed. Figures from 29 police forces across the UK showed the overall number of suspected gun crimes arrests against children rose from 423 in 2014 to 507 in 2015.

I personally think the age of crim respons should stay at 10, anyone else?

[JimmyRiddle]

I would agree. The age of responsibility should be the average age that kids realise that an act is either right or wrong. At age 10 I knew a long time before that, that killing a toddler from a shopping centre is the worst kind of wrong.

Here's another question they'll ask "They know it's wrong but aren't old enough to consider the consequences of their actions!?". I'm old enough to smoke pot, steal, etc. and know it's wrong but still not fully appreciate the negative effect it has on my life til I've screwed up my job, income, criminal record, etc.

I live in one of the states where we have the lowest age of criminal responsibility in the world - 6 years old. I THINK they can try a kid in adult court in very rare circumstances, so I guess technically an NC court could sentence a kid to death as it's still on the statute books and actually used in this state.

[powdermonkey]

A colleague and I dealt with 4 kids last night, aged from 12 to 14, who had stolen e-cigs to the value of £60 from a shop and one had, earlier in the day, stolen two bottles of the liquid for e-cigs from another shop (this only came to light during the second theft). The e-cigs could not be re-sold at their full value because the packaging had been opened.

These kids came form decent homes and the thefts were committed, they said, for the thrill. Only two had committed the actual thefts with the others being there. All got community resolutions and the main two culprits will be going on a Juvenile Retail Theft course which lasts for 2 hours. All knew what they did was wrong and knew it at the time, one especially so because his older brother has a shop and has suffered from shoplifting himself. Strongly worded advice and warnings were given and as none of them had been in trouble with the Police before, I think it was appropriate. Plus they're all banned from the stores involved and as one is a local Co-op that'll probably inconvenience them more than the 2 hour course.

As for the possibility, however remote, that a US state could sentence a 6 year old to death, I doubt it would ever happen even if the sentence was commuted.

I'd have no great argument against lowering the age of criminal responsibility not raising it as it's my belief that the average child knows by the age of 7 or 8 that it's wrong to take other people's belongings.

[falkor]

committing thefts just for the thrill eh? what will they do for thrills next I wonder?

So in other countries, what the hell do they do with criminals under 18 who can't be prosecuted in any way? Send them home? Detain them in a YOI on public safety grounds rather than a criminal conviction?

well there’s no possibility of Criminal Conviction If they’re under age, viz 10 at the current time. Whatever age is decided on, anybody under that age cannot be convicted of a crime even if it is murder, rape, robbery, whatever

so what is done with a young person who “commits a crime” who is aged under the designated age in another country? All we can do is think of what happens in this country to someone commiting a “crime” under age. So in my experience Police would still attend a) to ensure that no breach of the peace occurs, you can be arrested at any age for breach of the peace, under or over the age and b) how do we “KNOW” the person is under age? Ok they say they are 9, how do we know? We have to be satisfied surely that that is the case

Having satisfied ourselves that indeed the person is below criminal responsibility age, then we still have a duty to note what has happened a) for intelligence b) for other agencies to deal and c) is anyone else, over the age, implicated? They could be!