Should the age of criminal responsibility be raised?

[Dunenewt]

The current age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10 years old, but recently, the "Children's Commissioner for England" has come out and suggested this should be raised to 12.  However, this has been attacked by many people, most notably Denise Fergus, whose two year old son, James Bulger, was killed by two 10 year olds.  One of these 10 year olds, Jon Venables, now 27, has recently returned to prison for 'a serious offence'.  In Scotland, the age is 8, but it will soon be changed to 12.  What do people think? 

[nampigai]

OR should some people just not be allowed to reproduce?

[Dunenewt]

Actually, I read something about that earlier as well.  Someone suggested that anyone who was receiving state benefits should require a breeding permit, as they cannot support the child by themselves...I certainly don't agree with that, but that issue certainly intertwines with this one.

Having dealt with young criminals myself, its quite plain to see that no matter what kind of punishment is given, a lot of them don't respond in a positive way, and it only encourages them, as has the ASBO (Ant-social Behaviour Order), which children these days see as a badge of honour, rather than recognising the bad things they've done.  I think the parents of the children certainly need to be punished in a harsher manner than they are now, and I think it would be much more of a deterrence.  How many crimes are committed by young people, under the age of 16, when their parents have no idea where they are?  How many of these parents know, and turn a blind eye to the anti social behaviour of their children?  Personally, I think there should be a method of withholding alcohol and cigarettes from these parents, or something along those lines, something that will make them sit up and take notice, without directly affecting their well being.  I don't think fines work, as a lot of these families are from deprived areas, and cannot cope financially anyway, so fining them is just taking more money from the tax payer.  Maybe, if certain parents were forbidden from going to the pub, instead of looking after their children, they'd pay more attention to what their children were actually doing?

[nampigai]

I was fucking with you - and on my way out of the door. But nevertheless, I still don't think that having children should be a legal right!

I agree with you newt - no doubt about it. In Denmark the discussion is whether or not we should lower the criminal age as I recall it was recently lowered to 14. I don't think that punishment is the way out of the problems. Pre-emptive "actions" role-models and mentors for the youngsters.

And then legal actions against the parents. If parents can't handle their children, the children should be taken away from them if possible - depending on their age. The only thing that should be taken into consideration should be the welfare of the children.

[MrFlibble]

I don't think that punishment is the way out of the problems. Pre-emptive "actions" role-models and mentors for the youngsters.

And then legal actions against the parents. If parents can't handle their children, the children should be taken away from them if possible - depending on their age. The only thing that should be taken into consideration should be the welfare of the children.

I absolutely agree with that. Family is the primary factor in shaping the social identity of a child, and at the same time this is the area where a lot depends on circumstances. I think that like there is "sex ed" in school, perhaps there should also be "parent ed", so that people learn how important it is to raise their own children properly as soon as possible. (The only problem is, what pedagogical theory(ies) should underlie such studies?)

[Dunenewt]

But the addition of a 'parent ed' would then just be another burden on the education system surely?  Also, if they start learning these things early in school, surely its going to make them think they are capable of having a kid at an early age, as they have had the 'training' so to speak?  I'm not sure good parenting can be taught in school as such, its more of a life skill.

[athanasios]

It should be abolished! I fail to see why should there exist an age limit. What counts is if the person understands what he is doing.

[Dunenewt]

And how can you determine whether a person truly understands what they are doing?  There needs to be a minimum age limit of some kind, otherwise are two year olds to be prosecuted for eating sweets they've taken off the shelf without their parents knowledge?  Are five year olds to be charged with public disorder offences if they throw their toys at another child?

[MrFlibble]

I'm not sure good parenting can be taught in school as such, its more of a life skill.

I'm not arguing that parenting can be taught at school, but perhaps, at least, it would somewhat improve the situation, as many parents are seemingly unaware of the problems of parenting beyond satisfying the material needs of their children.

I really have no idea how it could be solved, but leaving it entirely to chance that the "life skill" of raising children will develop of itself is surely not a solution.

[chatfsh]

Actually, children have a fairly well-developed sense of right and wrong by age 5 or 6.  However, they may not understand the gravity of their actions since the typical consequences are minimal to non-existent.  At age 5, when a child misbehaves he or she may receive a scolding, a

[MrFlibble]

I think that the sooner we begin to hold the youth accountable for their actions, the sooner they

[Dante]

Because mentally scarring people whose minds haven't fully developed yet is a surefire way to produce healthy adults.

[chatfsh]

Well, I hold it that responsibility should not be based on fear of punishment, but on some kind of social awareness in the first place, that your actions matter not only for you but for the people around you as well. Obedience based on fear is usually not effective.

I believe that one very effective means of persuasion is the

[Edric O]

I believe that one very effective means of persuasion is the

[Dunenewt]

In addition to what Edric said, children under the age of 16 are still legally children, and parents should accept a lot more responsibility for any crimes committed by their children.  The fact parents are so blas

[SandChigger]

I believe that one very effective means of persuasion is the

[nampigai]

I agree newt. I think a big part of it is due to the fact that parents, when finally with their children wants either peace after a hard days work

[MrFlibble]

But then, you must clearly explain to them the negative consequences of their actions.  The child can then choose whether they

[chatfsh]

The problem is, this stick is too big for the task - because you'll never recover after being hit with it. Going to jail during your teenage years will ruin your education and make it impossible for you to mature normally. So it will pretty much ruin your whole life.

Good grief, I

[athanasios]

Hwi Noree: Well spoken.

And how can you determine whether a person truly understands what they are doing?

The court will decide that.

(with prison time being given only for murder and rape).

:O Personal experience: While I was transferred in prison (Back then my state violated human rights, because it didn't like me being a good Christian-John 15:19-21) I stayed for a night in the same cell with a minor who was imprisoned for beating his teacher. From the discussion we had, it was evident that he was well aware of his act and the consequences of it. I had the opportunity to preach to him about Jesus and God and help him see the right path. He was studying the Bible in the past but he was led astray mainly because of bad associations. It was up to him to decide what to do with his future. I hope he made the right choice.

[Dante]

So essentially you found someone in a vulnerable position and took advantage of that situation to undermine their already precarious grip on reason. That's... disgusting.

[athanasios]

Tell that to those criminals who have been rehabilitated because they conformed their lives to the principles of the Bible. You can be sure that now they won't murder you for what you say. :P

[Dante]

Oh sure, because no christian has ever murdered anyone.

[athanasios]

Whoever murders violates God's Law, so he cannot call himself a Christian anymore.

[Dante]

In that case there's an awfully big precedent for christianity not being a particularly effective deterrent.