too not understand UKs low age of crinemal responseabilty(32 Posts)
I dont understand why England, Wales and Northern Ireland have one of if not lowest age of responsebilty in the developed world even lower then the UN recomended age of responsebilty. (If I rember correctly Scotland is higher)
If I rember correctly the government at the time lowered to age so that the bulger killers could be tried as prevously they would of fallen bellow age of responseabilty.
I think I am being unreasonable to think its silly having the age so low in comparson with the rest of Europe and in most states of the USA and most other developed nations and even against the recomendations of the UN.
Maybe England needs this as we are struggling with one of the highest youth crimes in Europe which to me indicates something somewhere is serously wrong here as nations with higher populations are not suffering from these levels of youth crime (eg Germany and France).
I am being unreasonable to suggest we need to invest time and money to discover what is going wrong with Brithish society as a whole so we can treat the cause of these problems rather then just the syptoms.
Am sorry if this is the wrong place am relitavly new to posting here and this is my thread. And am also sorry about the spelling and grammer from this post I am dyslexic posting on a phone without a spell check.
Remotecontrolduck Tue 19-Feb-13 15:29:24
"Too low?! Really? Sweden's 15 is very old, are they really saying a 14 year old doesn't know exactly what they're doing and what the implications are of it? "
So how come we have an age of consent of 16? Are we saying a 16yo doesn't know what they are doing when they have sex? Surely that is precisely what we are saying.
Having a higher criminal age of responsibility means you are putting more responsibility on the adults to prevent the child from engaging in criminal activity. Just as having a higher age of consent means you are putting responsibility away from the child, onto the adults.
Too low?! Really? Sweden's 15 is very old, are they really saying a 14 year old doesn't know exactly what they're doing and what the implications are of it?
10 is fine, I'd be happy with 8 as I think it is in Scotland
Sweden has a criminal age of 15, which is the same as the age of consent there. Seems quite logical to me.
What it does not mean is that nobody deals with child law breakers, merely that it is not the criminal justice system. Child killers would still be dealt with by the state, but through specialist youth workers/a specialised institution.
well, a lot of people think it is too low at ten. Partly because other countries are 2 to 5 years older. A crown Court trial of a 10 year old is said to look ludicrous to those who take part. A bit Dickensian I suppose. Top lawyers are anything but progressive
It depends on the level of the crime, I think. It's so hard to find a balance.
I have no experience of any of this really, but I would expect a 10-year-old caught stealing sweets to get a telling off from the police but for it not to go any further (unless it happened repeatedly).
That is a million miles away from James Bulger's killers. In my opinion you just cannot have people like that, of any age, loose in society. Their crime showed elements of 'adult' understanding, e.g. premeditated, then tried to cover it up. They clearly knew what they were doing. And of course there is the argument that they were only 10, but already capable of that? Where might they end up?
I think 10 is ok as the age of responsibility.
I think 10 is a reasonable age for criminal responsibility.
What we do with ten year olds who commit crimes is another matter.
Just because someone isn't put into the criminal justice system it doesn't mean there can't be other systems to deal with them. In this country ( don't know about others) we seem to be in love with the CJS (while at the same time slating it) as the only solution yet all the evidence is that it has a poor success rate at preventing future crime. Surely the number 1 aim with a 10 year old would have to be preventing them entering a whole life of crime. Putting them into the CJS is not likely to achieve this.
There is no effective system for rehabilitation in the Uk, for minors.
90% of the time they need to be removed from their home environment and effectively retaught right from wrong. That makes me sound a bit of a fluffy liberal, which I'm not! but putting 20 like individual in a secure unit isn't (IMHO) the right thing either.
As a parent who sends an odd ball, prone to being bullied DD off to school on the bus each day, I am entirely happy that any peer who assaults her knows the police can be called.
I'm certain that shops near secondary schools are happy that theft will be treated as theft.
If the age of CR was 12 some Y7s would be over and some under, that clearly has scope for mischief.
I've also have had shops say they have families that use under tens to steal for them. You would hope that at that age the police and SS are very clear they aren't doing it alone. The higher the age of criminal responsibility the easier it is to say that they were.
Ten isn't perfect, 13 would be better in many respects, except that starting secondary is such a clear change in adult supervision for many DCs. Yes by 13 most NT DCs certainly are mature enough to be certain of right from wrong and maybe many 10 year olds may not realise the absolute seriousness of their actions, but it is the one absolutely clear point to say you are growing up now.
I'm sure the police and courts are able to operate some discretion for DCs whose lack of maturity or family background need considering.
I don't think you can have murders and rapists waiting the street no matter how young they are. If they are that twisted at 10 then imagine how they are gonna be at 15,19, 34 etc. maybe intervention at a younger age can stop them and give them a chance to be rehabilitated.
It's getting scary how young such horrendous crimes r being committed. Shop lifting is nothing in comparison and that's bad enough.
I would hope a 10 year old would know stealing is wrong.
There are codes of conduct within stealing though. There are people like this, you see threads on here all the time - the mail order company sent me something I didnt order, should I keep it? I found something, should I keep it? and so forth, should I use the DCs money box to pay for the electric? Should I keep a tenner I found on the street?
You don't steal from your family (unless you are a drug addict), you don't steal in your immediate neighbour hood (because they are likely to be like-individuals), you don't shoplift (unless you are hungry because that mad vicar said it was ok), you don't keep lost purses if they have an address - you do however have a small gloat if a large multinational corporation has made a mistake in your favour.
There are grades of stealing - nothing in this world is black and white.
Maybe not a toddler, but I would hope a 10 year old would know stealing is wrong.
And even a toddler can be taught it isn't right and be made to take the thing back and say sorry.*
*Provided verbal and no SNs and blah blah blah disclaimer.
I don't think it's just about children not knowing what's right or wrong. Most know this before ten. It's also about being able to have perspective on what one is like/ how one has been brought up. A child of ten might 'know' stealing is wrong but if they have seen stealing around them all their life, parents might do it, friends etc or they might hear it spoken about as if it's a normal part of life, then not many ten year olds are going to be able to distance themselves from that. There are many adults who, brought up in a criminal environment now chose to live differently but I'd bet not many of them had made that break by the age of ten.
So a toddler caught pinching a tube of smarties in the newsagents is old enough to get prosecuted for shoplifting?
The Victorians had chimneys for reasons
We keep harking back to RT and JV as prime examples but there are a lot more children out there who have committed serious, violent crimes at a similar age. Because they are protected, rightly, from being ID'd we generally don't get to hear about it, it often remains in the localised press rather than going national.
Those of us in secondary schools tend to become fairly desensitised quickly; I've seen some things I would not believe a 12/13/14yo capable of. I've seen what YOI does to them, often a salvagable child, when locked up with like individuals also becomes hardened and frequently leaves the system worse than when they entered it. It's a survival mechanism, otherwise they would be buggered, quite literally. Their base survival instincts come to the fore, usually manifesting in excessive violence to protect themselves.
But I don't know the solution; I don't think the secure units we have now are working effectively but they have to be punished. Punish, rehabilitated, I would prefer rehabilitated. But it is so difficult to do that when they are mixing with sometimes worse individuals. It all very Lord of the Flies.
In the past, I've worked for Youth Offending Teams in England & Scotland and despite having a lower age of criminal responsibility, Scotland has a far more enlightened approach.
The system of children's hearings, which are child centred and place welfare, supervision and support ahead of punishment. It is especially good for younger children and those with complex family needs. (Serious cases aren't dealt with at Children's Hearings) but is less effective with older kids. There is also scope for social workers to show discretion and keep children out of hearing all together.
The English model is more criminal justice lead and is extraordinarily prescriptive. Kids of ten would be getting Referral Orders (which are quite intense offence-led programmes complete with community service style work of up to 30 hours) for comparatively trivial 'offences' one had chucked a water bomb at another kid which didn't even burst, scuffles in the playground, kids kicking doors and walls in their own homes causing 'criminal damage' etc. at the age of ten. At that age they understood they'd done something 'naughty' but not the difference between criminal and non-criminal behaviour. It was like using a sledge hammer to crack a nut.
Holly is correct there has been no change in the age of criminal responsibility. What did change in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was that the need to rebut the presumption that a child between the ages of 10 and 14 was incapable of forming criminal intent (Doli Incapax) was removed. Before then you had to prove that a child between those ages knew the difference between right and wrong. This was necessary in the trial of Venables and Thompson But wasn't particularly difficult for the prosecution. The removal of the presumption of Doli Incapax followed the Bulger trial and capitalised on a wave of fear about the criminal capabilities of children, but I am not aware that it was directly motivated by that case.
I think you make some interesting points and of course, just because we are saying that children who commit criminal acts below the age of responsibility should not enter the criminal justice system, it does not mean that we cannot intervene and involve them in restorative justice processes.
Old enough to do the crime, old enough to do the time!
So a toddler caught pinching a tube of smarties in the newsagents is old enough to get prosecuted for shoplifting?
I think it's too variable at 10. I would imagine that most 10 year olds have grasped the idea that killing someone is wrong, but do they really, fully understand that pushing someone in anger is wrong? When my daughter was that age she knew that doing certain things was against the law but she didn't have a grasp of the consequences of doing it anyway, other than being in trouble with me. Add to that lack of impulse control and immaturity and being held criminally responsible seems completely bonkers.
On the other hand, I've met some kids who seem way older than their years and who seem to know full well what they're doing.
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.
There isn't a UK age - it's 10 in England, Wales and NI; currently 8 in Scotland, rising to 12 sometime in the future.
What is the uk age of responsibility? Is it 10?
"nations with higher populations are not suffering from these levels of youth crime (eg Germany and France)."
You're absolutely right, worrid - certainly in Germany the level of youth crime is I believe lower because there is more concept of responsibility to society, and of belonging to society. You have a moral duty to behave well, not just because a punishment will follow. But children are also brought up to become independent gradually, and to make responsible choices (they're encouraged to travel to junior schools by themselves, for instance - DD2 started going on the bus by herself at 9, and accompanied her older sister when she was 7). In the UK it seems some kids are plonked on electronic devices to keep them quiet, given no responsibility until a ridiculously late age, wrapped in cotton wool, and then at 14 or 15 they launch full into a wild life of alcohol and sex, totally naive and clueless, and make crap decisions. Some of which include crime.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.