Criminal age of responsibility

[Shoxfordian]

What age do you think the criminal age of responsibility should be? In Scotland there's a campaign to make the age 12, and the UN opinion is that it should be 14. In portugal, it's 16.

I think it should possibly be 12 or 13 but also there should be some discretion based on the specific child's level of understanding.

Sorry not an aibu just an opinion question

I was teaching this to my students yesterday. Some countries have 16 or 18 as their age of criminal responsibility. Considering you aren't seen as responsible enough to consent to sex or buy a pet until 16 I think that is a fair age with some caveats until 21 or 25 as some countries do as they take into account brain development and emotional maturity.

I think that's too high especially for the worst crimes. I don't think anyone can say that child killers didn't know that what they were doing was wrong.

I’m in two minds. I don’t believe we should be criminalising youngsters at an early age as I don’t think it prevents future offending. On the other hand children do and should know from early age what is right and wrong. Assessing the individual child would show they had understanding ( Doli incapax was abolished a number of years ago).

It's so dependent on the specific child and circumstances. Definitely older than 10 but younger than 18. Sorry, I'm not much help here!

I'm not sure there should be one single age. I think it should depend on the 'level' of crime, eg, surely most kids would recognise murder or rape is wrong whereas antisocial behaviour might be harder to grasp.

And then the discretion is applied in deciding the sanctions (or treatment).

I think keeping it young is better. Not because I think 10 year olds should be prosecuted. But because I wouldn't want 11-15 year olds being exploited even more by criminal gangs.

If a child commits a serious crime they obviously need help, but prison is not the best place for their rehabilitation. They will be back in society at some point so it's better than can reintegrate. Countries such as Norway and Japan (criminal age is 20) manage this well. Also most kids in prison haven't committed serious crimes

I think the age is fine.
And the age for a custodial sentence is 12

Most kids will just get a YRO and most often no mark on criminal record.

Fines are made to parents/guardians which I also agree with!

If a child murders someone then yes, I think they should be detained.

Also most kids in prison haven't committed serious crimes not true in UK, very true in USA

10

@thedarkpassenger most kids in prison across the world are there for status offences. Media just tends to focus on the unusual. Really my point is that the UK is very punitive compared to other countries. Is Germany (age is 18 with special provisions up to 21) so different to the UK?

Depends on the crime and the child.

10 in England & Wales is ludicrously young in my view. There must be a reason other countries have chosen older ages. We say brains aren't fully formed until 25 and then criminalise 10 year olds. 12-14 would seem to be a more appropriate age.

I also think that with the exception of violent/serious sexual crime (ie not having a wee in public, or indeed having consensual sex in public) all crimes should be wiped off your record at 18.

I think 10 is about right

Try telling James Bulger's parents 10 is too young for criminal responsibility

I think stick to 10 unless there’s development delay. 10 year olds know right from wrong, the fear of police is what will hopefully keep them on the right path. Unless it was a serious crime they would get a telling off b4 prosecution. Could you imagine what teenagers could be up to, or forced/coerced into if they got a free pass

What Juliettango said.

I don’t think there should be a set age. It’s too arbitrary. The defence should argue incapacity. This also has the benefit of adjusting convictions for the worst crimes where appropriate (e.g. murder to manslaughter).

IMO, it depends on the individual. Children mature at different rates, and below the age of criminal responsibility aren't prosecuted. So I think if there MUST be one, then 10 is as good an age as any.
Once they attain the age of 18, the slate is wiped clean anyway,anything thereafter being dealt with as an adult.

Ten.

10 year olds know right from wrong but I don't think they necessarily know how wrong. Or whether they can foresee that their course of action may lead to injury or loss of life.

We always think of a child who has committed an offence as someone else's child. Our children would never do that. We've brought them up properly. But it could be our child. Look at your 10 year old. Do you really think he/she is fully responsible for all their actions and the consequences of them?

When challenged, two children throwing stones at an antique stained glass window answered "We're allowed to, we're not 12 yet!"

I think that's enough level of understanding to charge them.

10 in England & Wales is ludicrously young in my view.

If a 10 year old doesn't know right from wrong then their parents are guilty of not teaching them properly.
How a 10 year old is dealt with by the system is a different question but they should certainly be held responsible for their actions.

The defence should argue incapacity.

This will have the lawyers clapping their hands and counting their bank balance, yet another get-out-of-jail -free card.

We debated this fiercely throughout my law degree.

Arguments to increase it always faltered when you consider real crimes committed by those under 18. Like Jamie Bulger, mentioned above.

I don't think the age of responsibility needs to change, but our legal system needs an overhaul for everyone, from youth up to adults and OAPs. It's not fit for purpose.