The age of criminal responsibility? [Archive]

Daft

14-12-2007, 01:24 AM

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

14-12-2007, 01:39 AM

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

14-12-2007, 01:44 AM

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

Good point. Edited! : peace:

Emasher

14-12-2007, 01:49 AM

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

14-12-2007, 01:57 AM

gaggle64

14-12-2007, 02:00 AM

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

14-12-2007, 05:26 AM

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

14-12-2007, 05:31 AM

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.

Jordan

14-12-2007, 08:32 AM

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

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

Esequiel

14-12-2007, 10:08 AM

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! :yay: :bowdown: : peace: :blank:

Fierce_LiNk

14-12-2007, 10:25 AM

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

14-12-2007, 11:30 AM

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

14-12-2007, 11:39 AM

EEVILMURRAY

14-12-2007, 11:40 AM

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

14-12-2007, 01:28 PM

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

14-12-2007, 02:25 PM

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.

Stefkov

14-12-2007, 02:43 PM

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

14-12-2007, 02:52 PM

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

14-12-2007, 04:09 PM

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

14-12-2007, 04:12 PM

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

14-12-2007, 06:45 PM

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

14-12-2007, 06:48 PM

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

14-12-2007, 07:18 PM

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. :smile:

darkcloud

14-12-2007, 10:36 PM

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

14-12-2007, 10:53 PM

Slaggis

14-12-2007, 11:04 PM

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

Nope. Intill you hit 18, you shouldn't go to jail for murder. :heh:

Emasher, that is a little mis-guided don't you think? Someone of 14/15/16/17 knows exactly what they're doing and are perfectly capable of taking responsibility for their actions.

When those two 10 year old boys planned, and carried out the murder of James Patrick Bulger (3 years old) they knew exactly what they were doing. Thats why they were tried in an adult court.

Oxigen_Waste

15-12-2007, 03:06 AM

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

That's not it, you still don't realize some of the consequences of your actions. Of course, that's something that comes into play in your twenties, so the 18 thing is rather dumb nonetheless.

darkcloud

15-12-2007, 09:50 AM

That's not it, you still don't realize some of the consequences of your actions. Of course, that's something that comes into play in your twenties, so the 18 thing is rather dumb nonetheless.

Were you really that slow a developer?

fex

15-12-2007, 09:51 AM

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

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

I was going to post exactly the same. Easily by the age of ten a child knows what is right and what is wrong.

We had a man walk into our work on Thursday, wait for the woman on the till to open it, then he pulled a gun out on her and said "Give me your money" Her and another woman nearby froze. To which the guy confessed this gun was fake and he started joking around with them. Anyway the police got him and slapped an ?80 fine him (Only ?80 for pulling a gun out, pointing it at two people and completely shitting up two old women). Whilst talking with the police he refused to admit that he had done anything wrong so even fully grown adults once they've been consuming some alcohol (and he probably wasn't all there) don't understand between right and wrong. I still think something more than an ?80 should of been issued, jeez you get that fine plus 3 points for just nipping 3 mph over the speed limit (I know braking the law is breaking the law) but there is accidental and there is intentional and different scales in seriousness. Argh well. :heart: England.

Anyway the guy is now suing the council and the company as he now hasn't got enough money for Christmas presents. More armed robbery should do the trick.
________
Silver Surfer Herbal Vaporizer (http://vaporizer.org)

Daft

15-12-2007, 12:52 PM

I think everyone has nailed it. When you are about that age, roughly 10, you know what is right and what is wrong. BUT can you really understand the full effect of your actions. On the surface you know murder is wrong but at that age do you really understand why?

uəʌəsʎɐɾ

15-12-2007, 03:52 PM

I think the existence of this thread, and the ensuing existence of a debate over when one knows the difference between right and wrong, is in itself proof that 'right' and 'wrong' are not black and white :P

I'm a totally different person to who I was aged 10. I did things then that I would never do today - I stole the coppers from my sister's piggy bank. I stole stickers from magazines in the newsagents. I got into fights... I called a teacher a rude name...

It's all well and good knowing the abstract nature of what is Good and what is Bad, but it is your own previous experience of these things that determines the real significance and truly forms the idea of 'consequence' in your mind. I actually remember my mum telling me about the Jamie Bulger (i think that was the 3-year old's name) killing when I was a little over 10 years old. She had chosen to make sure I knew nothing of it as not to scare me - and you have to acknowledge the fact that there is censorship and restrictions placed upon news and information that young kids can access. It makes a difference, I'd bet.

I've seen on facebook some circular spammy shit going round on people's 'super annoying wall' thing, saying that they're petitioning to get the "kid A" (and B, i guess) guys who murdered Jamie to stay imprisoned, instead of their new lives in New Zealand (or something, I don't know how true it is). Personally I've been a bit disgusted at the level of response and support... Maybe this is more of a thing for the other thread? Second chances and all that... But surely they do deserve another chance? Imagine them sitting in a cell aged 70, spending 60 years inside. What sort of a life is that? Surely they should be given the opportunity to make it up to society, to become better people and make a difference in the lives of others?

Counselling... Guidance... Educating. Surely that's far more progressive and constructive than just locking everyone up willy nilly?

Gah, whatever. The justice system is too confusing and seemingly useless for me to get involved with.

Wesley

15-12-2007, 08:04 PM

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.

Damn I'm glad that law isn't in place. For a child that young not to be dealt with after killing someone is insane. Sure, counseling will be hard. So you're going to out a price on someone else's son or daughter, and then leave it up to the parents of the murder to teach the child right from wrong? Because clearly they're doing a really good job at teaching morals to children.

The fish

15-12-2007, 08:21 PM

That's not it, you still don't realize some of the consequences of your actions.

Who the fuck are you to judge me and how responsible I am?
I'd say it's fairly fucking obvious to me that if I do something, there are consequences.

Were you really that slow a developer?

As he seems to think everyone my age is irresponsible, I'm going to go with 'yes'. :indeed:

El Che

15-12-2007, 08:26 PM

I don't care how old you are. If you do the crime, you fucking well do the time.

Daft

15-12-2007, 08:28 PM

I don't care how old you are. If you do the crime, you fucking well do the time.

And how long exactly would this time be?

Things just aren't that simple.

El Che

15-12-2007, 08:30 PM

And how long exactly would this time be?

Depends obviously, but murder should be life.

Daft

15-12-2007, 08:42 PM

Depends obviously, but murder should be life.

Do you not think it would be better to first find out why the person in question felt the need commit the crime? Do you not think it is possible that their actions were at least partly a consequence of their environment?

I'm not trying to justify the crime but why was that crime committed in the first place? With the most shocking of crimes you tend to find at some point, society has failed these people. Especially when you are young, you have so little control over your environment. Do you not think these factors should be taken into account?

El Che

15-12-2007, 08:44 PM

Do you not think it would be better to first find out why the person in question felt the need commit the crime? Do you not think it is possible that their actions were at least partly a consequence of their environment?

I'm not trying to justify the crime but why was that crime committed in the first place? With the most shocking of crimes you tend to find at some point, society has failed these people. Especially when you are young, you have so little control over your environment. Do you not think these factors should be taken into account?
Oh dear. Fucking listen to yourself you soft ****.

Slaggis

15-12-2007, 08:46 PM

Oh dear. Fucking listen to yourself you soft ****.

Daft makes a perfectly acceptable point, maybe you should take your own advice and listen to yourself. So far on the forum you've made yourself sound like a complete arse, and you've only just joined (imo)

--

You can't just say if someone commits murder, they should go down for life etc. There can be many different circumstances involved in a case. Thats why crimes are looked at individualy rather than, "oh, a murder, right thats life".

Wesley

15-12-2007, 08:59 PM

Oh dear. Fucking listen to yourself you soft ****.

Yeah me and you man, we're hardxcore. Lets go into his house with some AKs and take charge.

Fuck!

Yeah!!!!

Daft

15-12-2007, 09:05 PM

Oh dear. Fucking listen to yourself you soft ****.

If you can convince me otherwise I'd be more than happy change my views.

uəʌəsʎɐɾ

15-12-2007, 09:38 PM

Che Guevara killed a lot of people... Do you not differentiate his from any other type of murder?

El Che

15-12-2007, 09:54 PM

Che Guevara killed a lot of people... Do you not differentiate his from any other type of murder?
I knew that was coming :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

uəʌəsʎɐɾ

15-12-2007, 09:56 PM

Doesn't excuse your own hypocricy :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Mr_Odwin

15-12-2007, 10:04 PM

Oh dear. Fucking listen to yourself you soft ****.

Yellow Infraction issued.

MoogleViper

16-12-2007, 01:56 PM

Slaggis

16-12-2007, 02:06 PM

We all have troubles. But we don't all go out and kill people. I'm not going to go out and kill someone because I stryggle to wipe my own arse. My grandad didn't go out and kill somebody when he was diagnosed with lukaemia.

If you can't control yourself then you don't deserve freedom.

What if there was a child that was bought up in terrible conditions, they were mis-treated, beaten all their life and basically told they were shit and worth nothing. What if when that child finally had the strength to do something about it, in a moment of rage he killed his parents. That child doesn't deserve life in prison or whatever, surely? (Extreme case, but it's all I could come up with at this precise moment).

Iun

16-12-2007, 02:07 PM

Agree with Moogle. Freedom is a privilege given to those who do not break the law.

MoogleViper

16-12-2007, 02:14 PM

What if there was a child that was bought up in terrible conditions, they were mis-treated, beaten all their life and basically told they were shit and worth nothing. What if when that child finally had the strength to do something about it, in a moment of rage he killed his parents. That child doesn't deserve life in prison or whatever, surely? (Extreme case, but it's all I could come up with at this precise moment).

I see what you mean but the child should know the conscequences of the actions he chooses. Besides there are other ways of dealing with it. Social workers, police etc.

Slaggis

16-12-2007, 02:18 PM

I see what you mean but the child should know the conscequences of the actions he chooses. Besides there are other ways of dealing with it. Social workers, police etc.

True, thats a good point. But, there are some cases where children have been killed etc by being treated so badly by their so called parents because social workers have done nothing ( For instance that 7 year old a few years back that was killed by her parents because social workers did nothing for her, her parents burnt her in scolding hot baths, she was raped and beaten). What would you say if there was so much anger inside you because you've been beaten everyday of your life, had horrific things done to you and you just crack and kill them? Would you think you deserve to go down for life?

Also, if you were bring treated so horrifically, do you think your parents would allow you to call the police?

MoogleViper

16-12-2007, 02:20 PM

True, thats a good point. But, there are so cases where children have been killed etc by being treated so badly by their so called parents because social workers have done nothing ( For instance that 7 year old a few years back that was killed by her parents because social workers did nothing for her, her parents burnt her in scolding hot baths, she was raped and beaten). What would you say if there was so much anger inside you because you've been beaten everydat of your life, had horrific things done to you and you just crack and kill them? Would you think you deserve to go down for life?

Also, if you were bring treated so horrifically, do you think your parents would allow you to call the police?

You could contact the police some way without them knowing like a teacher or a phonebox.

Slaggis

16-12-2007, 02:23 PM

You could contact the police some way without them knowing like a teacher or a phonebox.

Comon, do you really think someone would have the courage to do that? I mean, they'd be scared out their mind the parents would find out and kill them. Thats why so many child beating cases go un-noticed, because the child is pretrified of telling anyone because they parents have told them if they do, there dead etc etc.

MoogleViper

16-12-2007, 02:31 PM

Comon, do you really think someone would have the courage to do that? I mean, they'd be scared out their mind the parents would find out and kill them. Thats why so many child beating cases go un-noticed, because the child is pretrified of telling anyone because they parents have told them if they do, there dead etc etc.

Surely if they have the bottle to kill them then they'd have the courage to call the police?

I know that it isn't all black and white like the aforementioned situation. But in 99.9% of times crimes are wrong and people as young as 10 (and even younger) know the difference between right and wrong.

Slaggis

16-12-2007, 02:33 PM

Surely if they have the bottle to kill them then they'd have the courage to call the police?

I know that it isn't all black and white like the aforementioned situation. But in 99.9% of times crimes are wrong and people as young as 10 (and even younger) know the difference between right and wrong.

Thats what I mean Moogle, 99.9%. It's not 100%, you can't just say, muder means life etc, because in certain cases, it shouldn't.