Just been listening to the NEWS on Smooth Radio - well I love good pop music of my era!
There was an item about the current government debate on the possible raising the age for criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 to be in line with most European countries. The listens were further advised that Scotland is lower at age 8 and some European countries were as high as 14. The government are holding out for retaining the age 10, citing the killers of James Bolger (apparently there are some pro European people who think that Venables and Thompson should not have been tried at all!)
I actually pushed a boy head first over a shear drop onto a concrete surface below when I was either 4 or 5 (he survived with no lasting injury), but by the time I was 6 or 7 I jolly well knew all right from wrong and would support the Scottish view of criminising at age 8 - but I know I shall ruffle a few feathers!
Respectfully submitted - Plim
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Age for criminal responsibility from 10 up to 12?
Sex God
There is a huge range of understanding and maturity from 6 to 14. Each case should be taken on its own merits. Each child being assessed to find out what they understand about right and wrong prior to a decision being made about how they are to be handled during the investigation and trial.
It should assess how well they understand right/wrong and the relative 'badness' of actions. Whether they understand the risk of capture or the likely punishment for their actions is irrelevent to that assessment.
It should assess how well they understand right/wrong and the relative 'badness' of actions. Whether they understand the risk of capture or the likely punishment for their actions is irrelevent to that assessment.
7 - Switzerland, Nigeria, S Africa
8 - Scotland, Sri Lanka
10 - England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand
12 - The Netherlands, Canada, Greece, Turkey
13 - France
14 - Italy, Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, China
15 - Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Czech Republic, New York (US), South Carolina (USA)
16 - Spain, Japan, Texas (US), Poland
18 - Belgium, Luxembourg, most US states
This is a sample of the ages of criminal responsibility in different countries taken from:
8 - Scotland, Sri Lanka
10 - England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand
12 - The Netherlands, Canada, Greece, Turkey
13 - France
14 - Italy, Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, China
15 - Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Czech Republic, New York (US), South Carolina (USA)
16 - Spain, Japan, Texas (US), Poland
18 - Belgium, Luxembourg, most US states
This is a sample of the ages of criminal responsibility in different countries taken from:
Quote by foxylady2209
There is a huge range of understanding and maturity from 6 to 14. Each case should be taken on its own merits. Each child being assessed to find out what they understand about right and wrong prior to a decision being made about how they are to be handled during the investigation and trial.
It should assess how well they understand right/wrong and the relative 'badness' of actions. Whether they understand the risk of capture or the likely punishment for their actions is irrelevent to that assessment.
Thanks for responding - What you say is true also of things like driving a car at 17, some could drive at 14 others perhaps never - but there has to be an offical age of maturity. The same should apply for criminal responsibility, surely you can't have people of 14 "getting away" with things by pleading "being a late developer"?
Plim
Quote by northwest-cpl
7 - Switzerland, Nigeria, S Africa
8 - Scotland, Sri Lanka
10 - England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand
12 - The Netherlands, Canada, Greece, Turkey
13 - France
14 - Italy, Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, China
15 - Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Czech Republic, New York (US), South Carolina (USA)
16 - Spain, Japan, Texas (US), Poland
18 - Belgium, Luxembourg, most US states
This is a sample of the ages of criminal responsibility in different countries taken from:
Thanks for that - very thorough. If we are to believe the "soaps" that frequent our screens, I think some of the US states have quite reasonable ways of dealing with Juveniles - I suppose all the different countries have different views on this aspect which could skew the overall effect of justice one way or another.
Plim
Sex God
Quote by Plimboy
There is a huge range of understanding and maturity from 6 to 14. Each case should be taken on its own merits. Each child being assessed to find out what they understand about right and wrong prior to a decision being made about how they are to be handled during the investigation and trial.
It should assess how well they understand right/wrong and the relative 'badness' of actions. Whether they understand the risk of capture or the likely punishment for their actions is irrelevent to that assessment.
Thanks for responding - What you say is true also of things like driving a car at 17, some could drive at 14 others perhaps never - but there has to be an offical age of maturity. The same should apply for criminal responsibility, surely you can't have people of 14 "getting away" with things by pleading "being a late developer"?
Plim
Not at all. But some adults aren't truly criminally responsible either. And they are covered by adult psychiatric assessment. There should be process of assessment that enables the justice system to process all accused/convicted approriately.
So the actual age compared with the mental age would be irrelavent - the only measu re would be "did this individual know that what they did was wrong when they did it? If not, why not?" From that point the court can make a choice between 'juvenile' prosecution, 'adult' prosectution or 'psychiatric' prosecution/treatment.
If I think about it, non-psychiatric criminals often get treatment too. In the form of education, counselling or addiction treatment to try to reduce reoffending. So perhaps it is just a continuous spectrum of responsibility/punishment/treatment. Ideally each individual getting the input that makes reoffending least likely.
slightly off topic here with this question but i cant find the answer so thought id ask here .... if someone murders another person and tells the police they did it, if they have mental health problems (fairly bad ones) do they still go through the normal court processes, such as magistrates court then crown court, or does that get bypassed and they go to a mental health hospital instead/straight away ?
Sex God
I think it would depend when the problems were recognised. Any half-decent personal or court solicitor would have the standard process diverted asap. But I believe it would make it to the magistrate's court where that decision would be made. But I'm not an expert in it. Anyone with apparent mental/medical problems facing trial is assessed for fitness to stand, I think.
I know I've heard cases on the news where (for instance) the mother of a murdered child is taken straight into the care of a psychiatric hospital and the key word often used is 'secure'.
I know I've heard cases on the news where (for instance) the mother of a murdered child is taken straight into the care of a psychiatric hospital and the key word often used is 'secure'.
Valid point about the way official and legal attitudes to child development influences the overall ruling on age - actually the intervention of the off-thread reference to mental illness is partly in the same area and perhaps signifies a greater problem within our legal system of looking at issues in the wrong context.
However, I still feel there needs to be actual age point within the system and raising this too high will only promote the unfortunate trend towards unacceptable behaviours
Plim
However, I still feel there needs to be actual age point within the system and raising this too high will only promote the unfortunate trend towards unacceptable behaviours
Plim
Sex God
"Give me the boy until he is 7 and I will give you the man".
No idea who said that but it is very true. A child that is properly brought up (there is a wide range of that and you don't need money or 'education' to do it) has a much better chance of acheiving a non-criminal, productive adult life than one who has been dragged up by parents who neglect proper upbringing. Having said that, you don't have to be a sink-estate chav to fail your children. Pushy, coccooning, "my child can do no wrong" parenting is as damaging.
Disclaimer : I don't lump all council estate parents as useless - far from it.
No idea who said that but it is very true. A child that is properly brought up (there is a wide range of that and you don't need money or 'education' to do it) has a much better chance of acheiving a non-criminal, productive adult life than one who has been dragged up by parents who neglect proper upbringing. Having said that, you don't have to be a sink-estate chav to fail your children. Pushy, coccooning, "my child can do no wrong" parenting is as damaging.
Disclaimer : I don't lump all council estate parents as useless - far from it.
The age of responsibility at ten I feel is about right. By then a child KNOWS right from wrong. He knows that by biting another child or punching them is wrong. They certainly know seriously hurting someone is wrong.
I have always said though that a parent is also at fault. I always thought that parents WERE LEGALLY responsible for their offspring until the age of 16? IF that is the law why are more parents not hauled into to court themselves?
There are loads and loads of kids who are out there that have terrible young lives, that does not mean they will end up having mental health issues, or turn into psychotic murderers.
Ten years of age is about right and to some maybe harsh, but then sometimes the punishments are not harsh enough.
The parents in a lot of cases are as much in the wrong as the child that commits the crime, but then a lot of kids are brought up properly and yet still commit horrid crimes.
Each case has to be individually looked at, and some would believe that every child who gets locked away will end up having serious issues later in life....maybe those serious issues are already there, and by being locked up, may well help in some way into rehabilitation back into a decent society?
But in so many cases people tend to look away from the real issues, and in some cases those issues are purely with an evil horrid child, and no matter how they were brought up, it would have still been the same outcome?
I have always said though that a parent is also at fault. I always thought that parents WERE LEGALLY responsible for their offspring until the age of 16? IF that is the law why are more parents not hauled into to court themselves?
There are loads and loads of kids who are out there that have terrible young lives, that does not mean they will end up having mental health issues, or turn into psychotic murderers.
Ten years of age is about right and to some maybe harsh, but then sometimes the punishments are not harsh enough.
The parents in a lot of cases are as much in the wrong as the child that commits the crime, but then a lot of kids are brought up properly and yet still commit horrid crimes.
Each case has to be individually looked at, and some would believe that every child who gets locked away will end up having serious issues later in life....maybe those serious issues are already there, and by being locked up, may well help in some way into rehabilitation back into a decent society?
But in so many cases people tend to look away from the real issues, and in some cases those issues are purely with an evil horrid child, and no matter how they were brought up, it would have still been the same outcome?
Sex God
Quote by Ms_Whips
i think the only way a child can get away with not knowing right from wrong is if they lead a secluded life with crap parents. you can say this could happen till the child is of school age. from then on i'm sorry but every child is taught right from wrong at school. they know it is wrong to hurt another person, or to steal and so on. the rest is just psyco babble crap trying to lay blame anywhere but on the child. if there is a proven mental problem with the child then fair enough you can lay some blame there. but why can't people just accept that upbringing by the parent is not the be all and end all of knowing right from wrong? there are so many outside influences that no child can be said to have not known right from wrong. the sooner people realise that some people are just that way inclined the better. some kids go off the rails no matter what is done for them, their path is set early on i think.
has no-one noticed how many times these kids sexually abuse their victims? there is uaually a pattern to these things. it usually starts with the torture of animals and goes on from there. just because they are children it doesn't mean they don't know that what they are doing is wrong. it should be bad enough that an adult can get so bad that they do these horrid things, but for a child to be so out of control that they can even think it is just showing how bad their minds already are. that doesn't mean to say that they are sick as in mental illness, but maybe they are just sick in the head.
i personally think the age limit should be lowered, 8 is about the right age i think. after that every child knows right from wrong unless there is proven mental illness. and let's not forget that just because you don't care that you are hurting other, abusing them, hurting them and killing them does not mean there is anything wrong with the brain. it just means they don't care enough to stop themselves doing it. that is totally different to mental illness that stops you caring.
whips
I think I am with you all the way on this one Whips
Sex God
Quote by danne-gary
thank you foxylady and kaznkev for your answers
so far the case has been to magistrates court and then to crown court and the person is on remand in jail so altho in the past they have had mental health issues they must be ok (so far) to be on remand in jail rather than a hospital
danne
I'm assuming their previous mental health issues have been notified to the defence solicitor? Not that guilty people should be allowed to wimp out on a mental plea (not commenting in your situation at all) but to ensure that the case is heard in the most appropriate way. The solicitor is also in a position to observe any deterioration in condition and request a further assessment.
Remand must be an appalling situation to be in. A kind of purgetory and, since we assume innocent until proven guilty, I hope the person concerned doesn't spend too long in that horrible state.
Quote by foxylady2209
thank you foxylady and kaznkev for your answers
so far the case has been to magistrates court and then to crown court and the person is on remand in jail so altho in the past they have had mental health issues they must be ok (so far) to be on remand in jail rather than a hospital
danne
I'm assuming their previous mental health issues have been notified to the defence solicitor? Not that guilty people should be allowed to wimp out on a mental plea (not commenting in your situation at all) but to ensure that the case is heard in the most appropriate way. The solicitor is also in a position to observe any deterioration in condition and request a further assessment.
Remand must be an appalling situation to be in. A kind of purgetory and, since we assume innocent until proven guilty, I hope the person concerned doesn't spend too long in that horrible state.
Yes it is but they are there for a reason. They obviously were not granted bail, so must be serious reasons.
Also to be held on remand it is either because they are fearful of absconding, or the offence is too serious to grant bail.
I will go with the judge on this one.
i honestly dont know if the defence solicitor knows about the mental health issues altho i imagine they would know, i think the defendent would have told them but its a difficult situation and its hard for us to find much out about it even thou we, gary and me, are family, the family have the attitude of "we should carry on with our lives as normal" therefore any info we get is limited
the defendent admitted they killed the person so really i imagine theres no other choice than to have them locked up on remand and i feel they should be there to for other peoples safety
thank you for your replies/comments
the defendent admitted they killed the person so really i imagine theres no other choice than to have them locked up on remand and i feel they should be there to for other peoples safety
thank you for your replies/comments
Good comments added since I last looked in. I endorse the idea of the age going down to 8 and have always thought that, except there might be a "middle area" for 9 10 year olds where the judge had greater discretion in the circumstances of each case for a lower sentence - this would be in addition to any learning difficulties and mental illness issues. No way should we justify increasing this just because some European countries do.
Plim
Plim
I think each case ought to be decided on its merits. That would be ridiculously expensive of course so a cut off point makes sense. Aged 8, 10, 12, children develop at such different rates its a tough call. The young people close to me were ready to assume such responsibility at 8, others I have known would all have been in that position by 12. So I would have 8 as the cut off line and take age into consideration between the age of 8 and 12 after 12 age would be immaterial.
i am slightly biased on this issue as my daughter is 10 and has just had her elbow broken and arm fractured by a classmate, was not an accident and the police cannot do anything because the boy who did it is not 10 till next month, he has not even apologised even though he has had opportunity.
i believe it should each be assessed on merit as my 10yr old knows right from wrong and i am pretty sure this boy did too!
anyway will see what the school intends to do tomorrow!!!
i believe it should each be assessed on merit as my 10yr old knows right from wrong and i am pretty sure this boy did too!
anyway will see what the school intends to do tomorrow!!!
Quote by Kaznkev
i am slightly biased on this issue as my daughter is 10 and has just had her elbow broken and arm fractured by a classmate, was not an accident and the police cannot do anything because the boy who did it is not 10 till next month, he has not even apologised even though he has had opportunity.
i believe it should each be assessed on merit as my 10yr old knows right from wrong and i am pretty sure this boy did too!
anyway will see what the school intends to do tomorrow!!!
ok so you are angry and hurt , i would be too, but why is it a police issue, kids are rough, kids hurt each other, kids behave in irresponsible seems to me that people want a enid blyton childhood of children being free then go mad when crap happens.
the school will have a policy, instead of waiting you cud ask how they are going to implement it,and wat the anti bulling policy of the school is,assuming this was bullying
Because the law says it is a police matter........jeeze.
Yes kids are rough and yes kids hurt each other but....a broken elbow and a fractured arm fgs? Seems to me like ABH...but no doubt the lefties will harp on about they are too young to know what they were doing.
They did it because like a lot of kids today who have the " can't touch me attitude ". This may have been bullying but then again it could be another example of some kids just being horrid little shits.
I hope they kick the child out of school, but no doubt the parents will say he is an angel really.
When I was at school I know what my school would have done about it.....six whacks across the arse and then expelled....how right wing old fashioned is that for ya?
Quote by k38ff
i am slightly biased on this issue as my daughter is 10 and has just had her elbow broken and arm fractured by a classmate, was not an accident and the police cannot do anything because the boy who did it is not 10 till next month, he has not even apologised even though he has had opportunity.
i believe it should each be assessed on merit as my 10yr old knows right from wrong and i am pretty sure this boy did too!
anyway will see what the school intends to do tomorrow!!!
Just noticed your comment left after I was on the site yesterday - good luck for today. I know you are not alone with this sort of problem - one of my daughters was injured when she was about that age in not dis-similar circumstances and the lad who did it was a policeman's son too (that was a few years ago though).
By the way I notice this is your first post, so welcome.
Plim
Sexpert
Quote by kentswingers777
i am slightly biased on this issue as my daughter is 10 and has just had her elbow broken and arm fractured by a classmate, was not an accident and the police cannot do anything because the boy who did it is not 10 till next month, he has not even apologised even though he has had opportunity.
i believe it should each be assessed on merit as my 10yr old knows right from wrong and i am pretty sure this boy did too!
anyway will see what the school intends to do tomorrow!!!
ok so you are angry and hurt , i would be too, but why is it a police issue, kids are rough, kids hurt each other, kids behave in irresponsible seems to me that people want a enid blyton childhood of children being free then go mad when crap happens.
the school will have a policy, instead of waiting you cud ask how they are going to implement it,and wat the anti bulling policy of the school is,assuming this was bullying
Because the law says it is a police matter........jeeze.
Yes kids are rough and yes kids hurt each other but....a broken elbow and a fractured arm fgs? Seems to me like ABH...but no doubt the lefties will harp on about they are too young to know what they were doing.
They did it because like a lot of kids today who have the " can't touch me attitude ". This may have been bullying but then again it could be another example of some kids just being horrid little shits.
I hope they kick the child out of school, but no doubt the parents will say he is an angel really.
When I was at school I know what my school would have done about it.....six whacks across the arse and then expelled....how right wing old fashioned is that for ya?
At my school, anyone caught bullying had to do 6 3 minute rounds in the boxing ring with the Head boy (who was typically the captain of the first XV rugby team)
Quote by easyrider_xxx
i am slightly biased on this issue as my daughter is 10 and has just had her elbow broken and arm fractured by a classmate, was not an accident and the police cannot do anything because the boy who did it is not 10 till next month, he has not even apologised even though he has had opportunity.
i believe it should each be assessed on merit as my 10yr old knows right from wrong and i am pretty sure this boy did too!
anyway will see what the school intends to do tomorrow!!!
ok so you are angry and hurt , i would be too, but why is it a police issue, kids are rough, kids hurt each other, kids behave in irresponsible seems to me that people want a enid blyton childhood of children being free then go mad when crap happens.
the school will have a policy, instead of waiting you cud ask how they are going to implement it,and wat the anti bulling policy of the school is,assuming this was bullying
Because the law says it is a police matter........jeeze.
Yes kids are rough and yes kids hurt each other but....a broken elbow and a fractured arm fgs? Seems to me like ABH...but no doubt the lefties will harp on about they are too young to know what they were doing.
They did it because like a lot of kids today who have the " can't touch me attitude ". This may have been bullying but then again it could be another example of some kids just being horrid little shits.
I hope they kick the child out of school, but no doubt the parents will say he is an angel really.
When I was at school I know what my school would have done about it.....six whacks across the arse and then expelled....how right wing old fashioned is that for ya?
At my school, anyone caught bullying had to do 6 3 minute rounds in the boxing ring with the Head boy (who was typically the captain of the first XV rugby team)
thanks for the comments!!
kaznkev... the reason it is a police issue is that he had her in a headlock for over 5 mins then threw her to the floor causing the injury and 3 teachers stood by the boy in question is known as a bully and he attacked my daughter during a lesson, yes im hurt and angry but if the boy gets away with it now it may spiral out of control, the police and social services both agree that using it as a prevention may help in the long run.
