Kids...don;t you jsut love them?

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

The age of criminal responsibility should be raised from 10 to as high as 18, a report has recommended..

Apparently kids between the ages of 10-17 don't commit crimes.

Am I the only person who wants to bang the heads of the people who made this report against a hard wall until they see sense?

[fahrenheit]

I think 10 is a bit to low, maybe 13 or fourteen.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 9/2/07 05:44 AM, fahrenheit wrote: I think 10 is a bit to low, maybe 13 or fourteen.

Why is it too low? Elabourate please. I fail to see the logic.

[Jizzlebang]

At 9/2/07 05:59 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 9/2/07 05:44 AM, fahrenheit wrote: I think 10 is a bit to low, maybe 13 or fourteen.

Why is it too low? Elabourate please. I fail to see the logic.

Because at 10 kids sometimes don't see the consequence of whatever they are doing. Putting a 10 year old in jail from a petty crime could potentially ruin his entire life.

Don't look at it so black & white.

[Sajberhippien]

At 9/2/07 05:20 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: The age of criminal responsibility should be raised from 10 to as high as 18, a report has recommended..

Apparently kids between the ages of 10-17 don't commit crimes.

Am I the only person who wants to bang the heads of the people who made this report against a hard wall until they see sense?

First off, see this link. Although the US is one of the few countries that haven't ratified the CRC, keep it in mind.

Second, 10-year-olds aren't aware of the law; Sure, they do know that you shouldn't kill people, but they may not know the excact wording in the laws of copyright infringement.
Third, I personally see it as not democratic to put people in jail for laws which they haven't had an opportunity to change. Therefore, I think that the right to vote (and thus vote for what laws should apply) should be directly linked to the responsibility to follow these laws.
Of course 10-year-olds should face consequences for murder. But to get to jail isn't gonna solve anything.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 9/2/07 06:45 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: First off, see this link. Although the US is one of the few countries that haven't ratified the CRC, keep it in mind.

What exactly am I looking for in that. It's a big document,and I don;t really have time to rea dthrough everything in it.

Second, 10-year-olds aren't aware of the law; Sure, they do know that you shouldn't kill people, but they may not know the excact wording in the laws of copyright infringement.

Ah yes, but the problem is, in the article I linked to it said that almost 3000 children currently under the age criminal responsibility were reported as committing crimes. That's the reported number, I'm sure we can l agree that the actual number will be larger, by how much, no one knows, but not everything gets reported.

Out of 2480 crimes listed, half were arson or criminal danger. 66 were sex offenses.

For petty crimes I have no problem with kids getting a stern telling off and being sent home but when they are committing sex offenses and arson? And in some cases are actually killing people? You want to let them of for that, which is exactly what raising the age of criminal responsibility would do. It would make them untouchable in the eyes of the law.

These aren't copy right infringement laws, these are very basic things like ' DO NOT BURN STUFF, DO NOT KILL PEOPLE, DO NOT RAPE'. Though I'm still bemused as to how kids below 10 are even capable of rape...

Now then, let us then consider that if the age of criminal responsibility were to then be raised to 18, yes its the extreme in this case, but roll with me. That means that exactly how many kids will be effectively told ' it doesn't matter' they're only kids, they don't know what they are doing'? When clearly they do.

A ten year old nows right and wrong for big issues. If a 10 year old willingly crosses over the line and commits actions that are wrong, there should be some form of jurisdiction within the legal process to deal with them i some way .

As I understand it, they can't be touched.

Third, I personally see it as not democratic to put people in jail for laws which they haven't had an opportunity to change. Therefore, I think that the right to vote (and thus vote for what laws should apply) should be directly linked to the responsibility to follow these laws.

Using that logic no one under the age of 18 should have any laws enforced upon them.

Of course 10-year-olds should face consequences for murder. But to get to jail isn't gonna solve anything.

I think it's actually illegal to send kids to jail in Britain anyway, but that isn't the issue. The issue is that if the age of criminal responsibility were raised, a hell of a lot of criminals who willingly, knowingly and maliciously break the law will be untouchable as I understand it.

[LabBattle]

Wow, yesterday tony, today Tri, Im being amazed every day. I completely agree with you Tri, children need to be held accountable for their actions. 10 year olds know rite from wrong, giving these kids immunity only encourages criminal behavior, they feel like why not, if i can get away with it why not do it.

[Der-Lowe]

At 9/2/07 05:20 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: The age of criminal responsibility should be raised from 10 to as high as 18, a report has recommended..

That is the way it works in Argentina.

Apparently kids between the ages of 10-17 don't commit crimes.

That's not what it means, it means that, as you are too young, you are unable to fully understand what you are doing and what the consequences of your actions are.
Something like age of consent, but with crime.

[Assabut]

That's ridiculous, kids today are more aware of what they are doing.
I heard once on a news report that a 10 year old and an 11 year old nearly killed an old man.
Crimes today are getting worse, and being done by younger ages.

[D2Kvirus]

So, after 24 cases of teenagers murdering other teenagers (as well as various other ASBO-ralated criminality), the proposition is that the age of criminal responsibility should raise?

That makes sense, in a New Labour, try and deny ASBOs failed as anything other than a badge of honour kind of way...

[SmilezRoyale]

15 seems like the right age of criminal responcibility, sometime between 14-15...
But putting them in jail is not a good solution. I think that they're still young enough that they could be rehabilitated easier than regular criminals; it also seems destructive to put them into proximity with with other criminals.

[D2Kvirus]

At this point it's worth looking at the Bulger case: Thompson & Venables, who were ten years old, murdered him and were sent through the full criminal court process.

I found it odd that they weren't sent through juvenile court: true, juvenile court usually isn't set up to deal with kidnapping and a brutal murder, but if Thompson & Venables wwere sent to a Young Offender's Unit, why were they tried in the Crown Court? One does not go in hand with the other.

I get the feeling that whenm they catch the kid responsible for the Rhys Jones murder, he too will be subjected to the full Crown Court (and, again, the trial will be biased to get them sent down for the maximum length of time).

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 9/2/07 10:17 AM, Der-Lowe wrote: That's not what it means, it means that, as you are too young, you are unable to fully understand what you are doing and what the consequences of your actions are.

Bullshit. The 11 year old fucks who threw bricks at me a few weeks ago were all too aware of what they were doing. Likewise the kids that go out and commit rape and arson will be all to aware of what they are doing.

Not throwing them is jail is one thing, and I agree they shouldn't be thrown in jail, but not holding them responsible for their actions? That's complete bollocks.

[Elaizaforever]

i think the kids punishment age must be about 14 years . when they have a little brain in skull

[tony4moroney]

At 9/2/07 05:20 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: The age of criminal responsibility should be raised from 10 to as high as 18, a report has recommended..

so they believe that even a 15 year old minor should be exempt from facing charges for criminal actions and heinous crimes like rape-murder solely based on their age? to pass laws in the firm belief that they do not possess the capacity to be held criminally responsible at 15 or even 17 is incredibly fucktarded. do they honestly believe that 15 year olds are incapable of understanding that it is unlawful to kill, rape, steal or assault somebody?

basically what im interpreting is that theyre suggesting families have failed, the government has failed, christianity has failed the education system has failed any institution that educates and conditions minors have failed and they deserve to be patronized by the state and court.

[Proteas]

At 9/2/07 06:35 AM, Jizzlebang wrote: Because at 10 kids sometimes don't see the consequence of whatever they are doing. Putting a 10 year old in jail from a petty crime could potentially ruin his entire life.

I think at 10 years old, you're pretty much past the point of where someone can excuse your actions as simply you not knowing any better. I think age 8 or 9 is the latest you can pull that line and possibly get away with it, because at that point in time you've been pretty well influenced by your surrounding environment as to what right and wrong are.

Take this for example. A 13 year old with a glandular problem is going down for two charges of rape, and maybe more. It's an adult crime that shows serious sadistic intent in order to plot and carry out, and a complete lack of moral fiber... 13 years old or not, this kid should be locked away for a LONG TIME.

At 9/2/07 06:45 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Second, 10-year-olds aren't aware of the law; Sure, they do know that you shouldn't kill people, but they may not know the excact wording in the laws of copyright infringement.

So basically they shouldn't be charged because they just don't know the letter of the law? Ignorance of the law should be an excuse for breaking it?

I'll have to try that if I ever get a speeding ticket. "I swear, officer! I didn't know the speed limit through here was 30, I do 90 through here all the time!"

Third, I personally see it as not democratic to put people in jail for laws which they haven't had an opportunity to change.

.... what are you on?

[tony4moroney]

At 9/2/07 01:37 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/2/07 06:45 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Second, 10-year-olds aren't aware of the law; Sure, they do know that you shouldn't kill people, but they may not know the excact wording in the laws of copyright infringement.

So basically they shouldn't be charged because they just don't know the letter of the law? Ignorance of the law should be an excuse for breaking it?

I think that U.N Human Rights proposition is easily overrided by an already well-established law.

I'll have to try that if I ever get a speeding ticket. "I swear, officer! I didn't know the speed limit through here was 30, I do 90 through here all the time!"

Well you see it doesn't work because pleading ignorance is not a recognized defense in the court of law.

Third, I personally see it as not democratic to put people in jail for laws which they haven't had an opportunity to change.

.... what are you on?

Good point. Not really... [both of you]
Minors are often only tried as adults when they commit heinous crimes. There's nothing 'anti-democratic' about the process of law in which a criminal is tried and persecuted for his actions, regardless of whether he had the opportunity to change it or not. I can empathize with what youre saying sajber but minors aren't tried and prosecuted as adults for questionable laws but firmly established ones.

[fahrenheit]

At 9/2/07 05:59 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Why is it too low? Elabourate please. I fail to see the logic.

Because a 10 years is not an adult, they arent even out of elementary school yet. Kids make mistakes, but they are also much more likely to learn from them, and change their ways.

Its a sad thought to think that a ten year old can be sentenced to 20 years in juvy/prison because they let their anger control them for a few minutes.

[TonyTostieno]

At 9/2/07 05:20 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: The age of criminal responsibility should be raised from 10 to as high as 18, a report has recommended..

Apparently kids between the ages of 10-17 don't commit crimes.

Am I the only person who wants to bang the heads of the people who made this report against a hard wall until they see sense?

No you're not. Mind if I help?

[dodo-man-1]

At 9/2/07 10:17 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 9/2/07 05:20 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Apparently kids between the ages of 10-17 don't commit crimes.

That's not what it means, it means that, as you are too young, you are unable to fully understand what you are doing and what the consequences of your actions are.
Something like age of consent, but with crime.

Kids know what they're doing. I hate it when people think that nobody knows that something is bad until they're 18 and supposedly instantly mature. If you go out and rape someone at 13, you know what you're doing.

[TonyTostieno]

At 9/2/07 06:07 PM, dodo-man-1 wrote: Kids know what they're doing. I hate it when people think that nobody knows that something is bad until they're 18 and supposedly instantly mature. If you go out and rape someone at 13, you know what you're doing.

Agreed. If I went out and killed/raped/maimed/drugged/poked/yelled at someone I know exactly what I'm doing and what the consequences of my actions upon that person are. If I kill someone, they aren't getting back up by themselves, and a 12 year old knows that just as well as a 20 year old does.

[Empanado]

I'm certain that everybody here realizes that the vast majority of 11-year olds who shoot people up are in fact being used by gangs or other unescrupulous systems. They should be accountable for their actions, but not in the same way that an adult would.

They're kids, people. Stupid kids, maybe, but kids nonetheless. 13 seems like a good age to me.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 9/2/07 01:14 PM, tony4moroney wrote: A very well thought out argument explaining that people should be accountable for they're actions, even if they're minors.

That's a surprising thing for you to say.

I'm not against punishing 14-15 year olds for crimes, i just don't think they're prisons or facilities or whatever they're put in should be kept away from older criminals. my reasoning is sort of Jumbled...

[Elfer]

10 years old is grade 5.

If you don't know not to murder people or burn their houses down by grade 5, you're a menace to society no matter how you cut it.

[tony4moroney]

At 9/2/07 11:34 PM, Elfer wrote: 10 years old is grade 5.

If you don't know not to murder people or burn their houses down by grade 5, you're a menace to society no matter how you cut it.

youre out of line... the whole god damn system is out of line

why wont someone think of the children.. oh please someone think of the children!

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 9/2/07 10:55 PM, Empanado wrote: I'm certain that everybody here realizes that the vast majority of 11-year olds who shoot people up are in fact being used by gangs or other unescrupulous systems. They should be accountable for their actions, but not in the same way that an adult would.

They can't be held accountable the same way an adult would. We agree on this, especially if it is a circumstance where they are being manipulated. But to blanket every single child as ' not understanding what they are doing' or as being manipulated is foolhardy.

Where do you draw the line with what's classed as manipulation anyway? Peer pressure is a form of manipulation so if a 10 year old is in a group of older kids who are committing arson and goes along with it despite knowing its wrong, do you just ignore it?

This ISN'T about throwing kids in jail. It's about the police having the legal authority to hold children responsible for their actions if they break the law and knowingly do so. Manipulation be damned. If there are circumstances like they're being threatened then that will be taken into account like it is in any other criminal case. To make special cases on the generalisation that kids don't know what they are doing is stupid, and not to mention a load of bollocks.