how can this be reasonable? - someone who commits a petty crime having to disclose crimes for a job, someone who murders someone and gets a new ID not having to?

[Fairylea]

Ok. Possibly not thought this out entirely well but been thinking about this in light of the Jamie Bulger / Jon Venables new identity thing in the news at the moment.

So they gave him a totally new identity. He gets a job. Obviously the people hiring him have no idea who he is or what he's done. Some would argue (I don't agree) that he's done his time so fair enough.

But someone who say, stole some items from a shop as a teenager (still wrong but obviously not on the same scale whatsoever) would still have the same name etc and have to disclose their criminal record wouldn't they? Unless they lie.

So how is that fair?

Am I missing something ?

How is that reasonable?

If I am being stupid or not understanding something I would genuinely like to know.

I have deliberately left out details from the news regarding the case as I wasn't sure I could mention it here.

I was arrested for stealing some sweets from super drug when I was 13. There was no excuse for it but I was having ago ugh time.
I was given a warning and told it would be wiped when I turned 18. The law changed when I was 17 and now I have to have "THEFT" on my CRB when I give an enhanced disclosure. The law states this will be so until my 100th birthday.
I am an Nanny. And excuse my immodesty but I'm a really good Nanny. I'm qualified with comprehensive training and experience.

I HAVE to by law give an enhanced disclosure. I would never steal anything, it was something horrible I did as a child as a one-off, but it follows me. So prospective employers, who hire me to live in their houses and drive their cars, now get a piece of paper that has THEFT and a date on leaving me the embarrassment of explaining myself and - in some cases - a ruined interview.

But apparently if I had tortured and killed another child then I would be free as a bird with a spangly new record.

Hurray.

If you have are probation and does inform your employer of that you are on probation and get found out you will get sent back to prison.

So the example you used of tesco, someone with a new Id would stand a better chance of gaining employment that some one in prison for theft

*don't

• a tough time
• a Nanny

Time for bed I think...

What age are you seventh? If you don't mind me asking, I mean. My DP is a military policeman with a conviction for criminal damage (aged 10- stone thought a hotel conservatory roof) which he says was wiped....he's 27.

That's rough for you, it's things like that you wish you could put an asterix beside THEFT, with, "I was a troubled teen and I nicked some fruit pastilles from Superdrug, not the Northern Bank robbery"

It was a Mars Egg thing and the policeman said that I was stupid for nicking it because they tasted horrible

I'm cough 21 cough [looks around and hope no one notices that I'm so young]

Mines definitely not wiped btw had my last check in Dec, still there with its glowing neon underlined THEFT decorated in glitter on it [mutter mutter]

mate of mine is a GP, she has to declare when she has a CRB that she has a caution for under age drinking when she was 17 (celebrating her a level results the week before she was 18). it's now something she finds mildly irritating and pretty funny but when we were younger it was a source of massive stress/anxiety in case she wasn't allowed to work (junior doctors tend to have to move jobs every 3-6 months and have a new enhanced CRB every time)

That is extremely unfair Seventh, there should be some way of convictions like that being wiped. Obviously theft is wrong, but stealing sweets at 13 in a difficult period shouldn't be held against you.

I totally disagree with what was said about the boys being 11 and children thus not responsible. Yes, some things are silly and childish like shop lifting but brutally torturing a toddler? No, there is no excuse for that. Even a 5 year old would know that's beyond the limits of acceptability. They KNEW it was wrong.

Yes they were chidren at the time but childhood (and their reportedly very difficult childhood)does not absolve them of culpability.
IMHO a tue life sentence would not have been too harsh. I'm not quite sure what one has to do to be detained permanently tbh.

I dont know if this has already been mentioned as i havent read all the thread.

If you have a CRB check, you have to declare all convictions, cautions etc. if you dont, it will still show on your crb anyway, even if the crime was 25 years ago!

Those who think an 11 year old should be held responsible for their actions, do you think 11 year olds should be able to go and fight for their country? Should they be able to vote?

YABU.

If Jon Venables has a CRB check done (highly unlikely) his record will still come up. Clearly he would not be permitted to do any job with children or vulnerable people, ever.

It's only for a job that doesn't require a CRB check that he will be able to hide his record. If the hypothetical teenager applies for the same job they would not have to disclose their conviction if spent, eg after 3 years for most petty crime.

Not sure why you think that Jon Venables should not be able to get any kind of job ever in his life, or why you think he should forever be at the mercy of people who obsess over the case and seek to out him. If he is able to be released from prison whom does it benefit for him to be in hiding his whole life?

Well, honeytea, seven is deemed to be the age of reason; why should an eleven year old be held unaccountable for their crimes?

An 11 year old is not held 'unaccountable' - they can still be punished by the law. But many some of us don't feel that an 11 year old should be treated like an adult, whatever their crime, so a larger emphasis should be put on rehabilitation.

If you think that children are totally accountable for their actions at 11, then would you favour changing the law in other ways too? Should they be allowed to marry, join the army, leave school and consent to sex?

PS: Anybody who deems 7 the 'age of reason' has clearly not had much to do with 7 year olds!

The United nations recommends a minimum age of 12 for criminal responsibility.

If we say a 7 year old is capable of reasoning why not let 7 year olds take responsibility for their own lives? Why should we tell a 7 year old what to do and drive them around and think that as a parent and adult our opinion if more valid than a 7 year old's?

Seven? Where? The Bible?

Seven year olds believe in the Tooth Fairy!

This isn't about heather teu are capable of "reasoning" though. If a 7 year old or an 11 year old stole something then yes, their age is a factor in this. We do silly things when young. But when a child TORTURES and MURDERS another child that can't be passed off as "well, they don't have full consideration yet"
Torturing another hold indicates a serious and dangerous underlying MH issue.
No, I don't think 7/11 year olds are old enough to vote or have lots of responsibility. But I think they CAN be held responsible for serious, serious crimes.

And no, no matter what your age when you did it, if you deliberately killed another human being you should NOT be able to live a normal life and get a job etc.
Jut because he isn't working WITH children he is still amongst the people. How would you feel if the man your child bought sweet in a shop from turned out to be a child murderer? Or the bus driver had tortured a classmate when he was a boy?

*whether they are