The age of criminal responsibility?

[Daft]

I just watched "Boy A" which was on Channel 4 a couple weeks ago. I'm not sure if anyone here saw it but if you can you should. Its about "[t]he story of a young ex-con Jack, newly released from serving a prison sentence for a murder he committed as a child."

 

This got me thinking. What do you think the age of criminal responsibility should be? Currently in the UK, if I'm not mistaken, it is 10 years old. But is this too young? Do you think at the age of 10 a child really fully understands the consequences of their actions?

 

"You run the risk of labelling them as criminals. They begin to see themselves as delinquents, others treat them as delinquents, and very quickly you are in a cycle that youngsters find it very difficult to break out of."

 

The age of criminal responsibility is higher in many other countries - in France it is 13, in Japan it is 14 and in Italy it is 15.

 

I am aware, since I'm writing an essay on it, that in Japan the age of criminal responsibility is constantly under question. The most recent widely reported case was that of an 11 year-old girl known as Nevada-tan. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3768983.stm)

Nevada, who was too young to be punished under Japan’s Penal Code, was transferred to juvenile detention, before her case was determined in a family court. Is that too lenient?

 

This is the age of criminal responsibility in a couple other countries. (I hope they are right!)

 

Canada: 12

France: 13

Germany: 14

Japan: 14

Russia: 14

Italy: 15

 

Basically, what do you think the age of criminal responsibility should be? When does a child become fully aware of the effect his/her actions will have?

[gaggle64]

It depends on when you feel that child is fully responsible for his or her own actions. Fourteen seems fair, ten I would say is far too low. In the above example, I would certainly surmise that eleven is too young to face the death penalty in an adult court. I would hope an extensive rehabilitation programme was made available to her.

 

Also, I'm not sure how balanced that site you're looking at is. The article seems a tad emotionally charged and determined to reach it's own conclusions, to say the least. Best stick to well known vetted sites and sources like the BBC and Reuters if I were you.

[Daft]

Best stick to well known vetted sites and sources like the BBC and Reuters if I were you.

 

Good point. Edited! : peace:

[Emasher]

Anyone under 5 the parents should be fined.

Anyone under 14 should get counseling

Anyone under 18 should get put in an institute (not a jail)

Anyone over 18 should get the full penalty

[Oxigen_Waste]

Anyone under 5 the parents should be fined.

Anyone under 14 should get counseling

Anyone under 18 should get put in an institute (not a jail)

Anyone over 18 should get the full penalty

 

QFT. I agree totally.

[gaggle64]

Good point. Edited! : peace:

 

Top man. The BBC News site is my best friend when researching these kinds of issues - simple articles that give you the basic facts.

[Iun]

It's a difficult question of age, assigning an arbitrary number for a whole society means that some people are excluded from responsibility when they know exactly what they are doing.

 

Cases should probably be assessed on individual merit, but this would likely cause a lot of problems. So I guess 10 would be about right. What really needs to go is this "protect the identity" thing we give to youngsters. They should be thrown to the wolves like any other criminal.

 

Also, I'd more for a lift on the law that allows false rape claimants to be protected. A good friend of mine was sat next to me for a whole night drinking and chatting, the next day he was accused of rape by someone at the same party. For a fortnight, his life was hell, and he confessed he was considering killing himself - the papers took it as a sign of guilt. Once everybody's testimonies were heard, the case was thrown out, but we never found out who it was who had accused him.

[Sanchez]

I'd say a kid understands what he's doing between the ages of 8 and 10, although he might not understand the full severity of his actions until he's 13 or 14.

[Guest Jordan]

By the age of 10, a child knows what right and wrong is.

 

Going by that, they should be charged by that age.

[Esequiel]

I agree with the above poster.

 

A group of 10 year old kids shot a woman in the neck with an air rifle while she was taking her 2 year old kid out round a forest. They were let off with a slap on the wrist.

 

For me at the age of 10 and sometimes even younger they should just be jailed.

 

I also believe that they could clear the prisons in the UK in no time at all. All the muderers, lifers, Molesters, rapists ect just shoot them all. Do it live on TV to deter people from doing it.

 

Then send back all the immigrants in jail. Why should we keep someone in prison only to release them to there country when they are free.

 

One day someone will stand up to the rediculous government currently in charge of England.

 

VOTE ESEQUIEL FOR PRIME MINISTER 2010! : peace:

[Fierce_LiNk]

Good thread, dude.

 

Hmm, this really is a difficult question, immediately gets me thinking about that Jamie Bulger case, some 10 or so years ago now. Weren't those kids 10 years old?

 

Jordan: I disagree. In theory, by that age, children should know whats right and/or wrong. However, you may find more maturity in an 8 year old than you would in a 12 year old, for example. There's a lot of factors to consider. I think it really does depend on the context of the case in question, meaning I think it's difficult to incorporate one firmly set list of rules.

[Esequiel]

I remember that case. I was only young myself, and i remember thinking how horrible it was.

 

I knew it was wrong and im younger than them.

 

Prison for life would nothave been long enough.

 

Now they are out with new identitys and we are paying for it.

[Wesley]

Anyone under 5 the parents should be fined.

Anyone under 14 should get counseling

Anyone under 18 should get put in an institute (not a jail)

Anyone over 18 should get the full penalty

 

Whaaaat? So if a 5 year old kills someone nothing is done with the child? Don't you think starting counseling would be a good idea then?

[EEVILMURRAY]

By the age of 10, a child knows what right and wrong is.

 

Going by that, they should be charged by that age.

I concur, they know what death is. They know what awaits them if they piss on the law and get caught. You can't hold it off until they're older.

[Emasher]

Whaaaat? So if a 5 year old kills someone nothing is done with the child? Don't you think starting counseling would be a good idea then?

 

No, if it was a kid under five it was almost certainly the parents fault. The parents should be fined so they learn something and then teach their kid wright and wrong. Counseling would be hard for a kid that young, it would be better just to try and get the parents to teach them. And if it continues obviously the kid should be put in a home.

[Shino]

A 10 year old kid might know murder is bad, but probably hasn't given enough though as to why its bad and his value for life isn't well (or at all) formed. These kids should be taken to special facilities to make them realizes the consequences of their acts, and why they should give a damn, before they grow up and turn into sociopath.

[Guest Stefkov]

Shouldn't you factor in the upbringing of the child. His/her parents, are they the type who'll nurture their child, care for it or the type who doesn't?

What about schools, I think children by the age of 10 know what's right and wrong in their actions. Maybe in schools form an early age children could be taught about death, and more, not a lot but more, in depth knowledge of what's right and wrong.

It can't be that hard to tell a young child that picking up this object and plunging it into another person is wrong can it?

 

You can raise the age or lower the age, in the end it's the mind of the individual which causes these crimes.

[Kirkatronics]

age is a hard thing to chose by, because its intelligence that makes people decide.

 

ive seen 10 year olds who are smart as adults, and 10 year olds as smart as a 3 year old.

[MoogleViper]

Anyone under 5 the parents should be fined.

Anyone under 14 should get counseling

Anyone under 18 should get put in an institute (not a jail)

Anyone over 18 should get the full penalty

 

That's rubbish. I'm 17 and I know that murder is wrong. Anyone 10+ should be eligible for the full penalty of murder. Generally ***** at 12 are ***** at 30.

 

Say a 13 year old killed your child/parent. Do you think it's fair that all they recieve is a bit of counselling? Because I sure don't. Any sane 10 year old knows the difference between right and wrong. If they don't then they don't deserve to be in civilised society.

 

This is similar to a debate I was having with my sister recently. When does somebody become responsible for their own actions and not a product of their parents? I hate it when parents get blamed for their children's actions. Now I'm not saying that bad parenting isn't to blame, far from it, but people are in charge of their own actions. I've heard people blame the actions of 18+ year old scumbags on their parents.

[Slaggis]

Awesome thread Daft. I literally had this discussion is sociology a few days ago.

 

I know the consequences of my actions when I was 10, I mean, I knew murder was very wrong, as was assulting someone, or theft etc. So I don't see the problem.

 

It's like the case of that Jamie Bulger (sp) toddler. Where two 11 year olds killed him on the train track. Thats what bought the legal age down as far as I know. The other countries need to do the same.

[Tellyn]

I knew that it was wrong to murder at the age of 10 and before because I was brought up right. In my opinion, they should know right and wrong because of their parents. Jail the child and the parents, a no shit approach.

[AshMat]

That's rubbish. I'm 17 and I know that murder is wrong. Anyone 10+ should be eligible for the full penalty of murder. Generally ***** at 12 are ***** at 30.

 

Say a 13 year old killed your child/parent. Do you think it's fair that all they recieve is a bit of counselling? Because I sure don't. Any sane 10 year old knows the difference between right and wrong. If they don't then they don't deserve to be in civilised society.

 

This is similar to a debate I was having with my sister recently. When does somebody become responsible for their own actions and not a product of their parents? I hate it when parents get blamed for their children's actions. Now I'm not saying that bad parenting isn't to blame, far from it, but people are in charge of their own actions. I've heard people blame the actions of 18+ year old scumbags on their parents.

 

This sums it up for me.

Come on, 14-18 gets put in an instute? I as a 16 year old know what murder is, anyone commits murder at my age belongs in jail.

(though i'd prefer murderers and rapists were put through something a little more painful, but there's the risk you get the wrong person)

[EEVILMURRAY]

This is similar to a debate I was having with my sister recently. When does somebody become responsible for their own actions and not a product of their parents? I hate it when parents get blamed for their children's actions. Now I'm not saying that bad parenting isn't to blame, far from it, but people are in charge of their own actions. I've heard people blame the actions of 18+ year old scumbags on their parents.

You're a bell end. And by that, I mean your parents are bell ends. Not you.

 

Flawless logic right there.

[darkcloud]

Anyone under 5 the parents should be fined.

Anyone under 14 should get counseling

Anyone under 18 should get put in an institute (not a jail)

Anyone over 18 should get the full penalty

 

 

You're an idiot! Especially for the UK!

 

I know from my childhood on my estate that kids know full fucking well they can't get into trouble with the police under certain ages.

 

I remember being 7 and a friend said to smash someones window, I said no and they told me not to worry cause the police couldn't do anything. I just walked off.

 

Also to say kids don't understand at a young age is fucking stupid. Everyone knows, you hit someone they get hurt, you hit someone with a hard object they get hurt more and if you stab someone they can die.

 

It's not like you're oblivious of the world around you before you are 10.......

 

 

IMO there should be a case by case examination of things. Things like stealing are different from violent acts for example. Oh and things where the child might not even realise it's a crime (I struggle to think of it but something obscure like some kind of fraud)...

 

I really do think violent acts should be treated with harsh sentences though. 9 year old kid goes out and stabs someone and they should be fucked for life imo. I don't care if it will ruin there life as they may have just ruined/ended someone elses. They don't deserve a chance as everyone at that age knows right from wrong in such a case.

 

 

Anyway, this post probably isn't laid out very well as I just typed out my thoughts but yeah. Raising the age would just give people more of an excuse to commit crimes whilst they can.

[The fish]

Anyone under 5 the parents should be fined.

Anyone under 14 should get counseling

Anyone under 18 should get put in an institute (not a jail)

Anyone over 18 should get the full penalty

 

So I'm not fully knowledgeable of what I do, as a 17 year old?