Im not sure how that would benefit society? besides which it would give 13 year olds carte blanche to do what ever they want, as at 13 anyone is fully aware of what crime is imho.
9-year-olds are part of society, and it would benefit them, surely.
On your second point, I think there's a difference between knowing what a crime is, and being responsible for your actions.
How many people didn't know that it was wrong to hurt, tortue or kill another being when they were ten?
Very few I suspect. Most 10 year olds today are already savvy as to what they can get away with purely on the grounds of legal responsibility.The law should come down on them like a ton of bricks if they commit a crime as serious as an adult would do who would face a heavy prison sentence..Borstal should have been brought back over a decade ago, but no government has the will or the guts to do so.
Both these arguments, which I've heard a million times, make me so so angry. I've worked for years in the mental health system in East London, and I have met many Baby Ps who grew up.
The number of young villains out there aged between 10 and 14 is enormous. Giving them a free hand to commit even more crime would be terrible.
Those kids who tortured the other one were well known thugs, and knew full well whet they were doing.
Quite right DP.
Their parents should be charged as well for allowing these feral kids to commit these and other acts. In the old days they would have been in secure accomodation.
Bring back the borstals, of course that wouldn't work, I forgot their human rights. Sadly they didn't afford the same rights to the poor kids they nearly killed.
No, the age of responsibility should not be increased and not knowing what your doing is not really a good enough excuse for me.
The law requires, (sometimes! when it suits them imo/experiences) for both the act to be committed and for the intent of the act to be done, its the latter that they like to play around with imo, the policeman who was convicted and then won his appeal for assaulting a woman in his custody is an example imo of this.
Anyway, being to immature to know what your doing is not really the same as not having intent imo and I can remember well the age of 10-12. If I was to do something terrible, then I would have known that it was wrong.
Things like not realising how dangerous it is to throw stones and eggs at cars, letting down tyres could be put down to immaturity, they won't realise that the driver can lose control and crash but if the OP is talking about an assault or worse, then they would know thats wrong.bad and therefore should be punnished for sure.
No, the age of responsibility should not be increased and not knowing what your doing is not really a good enough excuse for me.
The law requires, (sometimes! when it suits them imo/experiences) for both the act to be committed and for the intent of the act to be done, its the latter that they like to play around with imo, the policeman who was convicted and then won his appeal for assaulting a woman in his custody is an example imo of this.
Anyway, being to immature to know what your doing is not really the same as not having intent imo and I can remember well the age of 10-12. If I was to do something terrible, then I would have known that it was wrong.
Things like not realising how dangerous it is to throw stones and eggs at cars, letting down tyres could be put down to immaturity, they won't realise that the driver can lose control and crash but if the OP is talking about an assault or worse, then they would know thats wrong.bad and therefore should be punnished for sure.
I agree they would know it's wrong and bad, but to me, that is not the point when you're talking about a ten year old. Of course, children who commit horrific crimes, especially against other children, need some kind of intensive attention by the authorities, to remove risk from others, and try to reduce their further reoffending. I just think there is more need to question WHY they are capable of such acts at such a young age ... why do they want to do wrong and bad things?
I agree they would know it's wrong and bad, but to me, that is not the point when you're talking about a ten year old. Of course, children who commit horrific crimes, especially against other children, need some kind of intensive attention by the authorities, to remove risk from others, and try to reduce their further reoffending. I just think there is more need to question WHY they are capable of such acts at such a young age ... why do they want to do wrong and bad things?
That can be done while they are in youth detention.
I know its a film but I'm reminded of the scene in the film Halloween where Doanld Pleasance playing the doctor/shrink said something about the killer " I spent 8 years trying to reach him and another 7 trying to make sure he stays locked up as I realised that what was behind those eyes was purely and simply.......EVIL".
Now I'm not attributing that to whover these kids are in this thread, but the analogy is, that kids can be detained and punnished for their crimes while attempts at rehabilitations go on as well. The latter should not be a substitute to detain people and punnish them though.
Some of the little S**** under 10 know exactly what they are doing, Where i used to live there was a group of kids all under that age causing mayhem and criminal damage by kicking footballs at neighbors cars denting them and, running across gardens deliberately damaging fences etc,
If you said anything to them you got back a load of foul language and if you threaten to call the Police they said, Go ahead we are all under age they wont do anything!!
As for telling their Parents, That was also a waste of time for all you got was a load of abuse from them as well,
If anything the age should be loward as some kids know how to play the system!!
Criminalise bitter horrible spikey people and let kids have fun.
dystopic u got it u built it you brought it condxemn the offspring but realise their roots are in your soiled soil, weed them out but how, your furrowed brow conceals more vegetative vermin than an inocent's concept of life, it's all on you! You're the mad one, you're the baying mob, you are the fecund beast slavering saliva and spitting vitriol at your own offspring, oh deranged beast, humanity...what have you become????
Shed atear, those who can relent from this march of anger and remember those days of fellowship and loev. Bear in mind the weary traveller, and cook him a meal. For we all are in some way marchng alone x
It's 12 years old in Scotland. Personally I think 10 is more appropriate.
It has only recently been raised from 8 to 12. 12 is about right in my opinion. It's not simply a case about children knowing right from wrong. It's also about understanding the implications and consequences of their actions. Such understanding increases with age.
Yes it should, it doesn't mean that those under the age of responsibility would get off it means they would be dealt with more appropriately. There is a reason why we have age of consent and voting age. Children are perfectly capable of understanding the mechanics of sex and voting but we stop them anyway because we accept that children cannot understand consequences in the same way as an adult. Why should it be any different for crime?
Baby P was a child who was basically used like a football for most of his brief life. He was burned with cigarettes, kicked, punched, etc.
Many children come from homes like this, before/unless they are 'rescued' by the care system. Many children of 10, 11, 12, who commit crimes come from homes like this. His was an extreme case, but abusive parents abound, sadly. Most of them were abused themselves. Physical/sexual/emotional abuse.
However horrific their upbringing, it shouldn't give them a 'get out of jail free'card until they are 14.
If anything, their upbringing will have condemned them to a life of being on the wrong side of society's rules, and most likely they are beyond help and need to be 'managed' or if necessary 'contained' They will probably be irretrievably damaged. They will always be a threat to themselves or other people.
That's not to say that my sympathy doesn't go out to those that have been damaged in such a way.
Yes it should, it doesn't mean that those under the age of responsibility would get off it means they would be dealt with more appropriately. There is a reason why we have age of consent and voting age. Children are perfectly capable of understanding the mechanics of sex and voting but we stop them anyway because we accept that children cannot understand consequences in the same way as an adult. Why should it be any different for crime?
Because criminal activity results in their being a victim who deserves justice as does wider society!
I got into politics at a very young age and support voting at 16 as those who are not into politics are unliklely to vote anyway. Most politicians get into politics at a young age too as do most people in professions like sports/actors etc etc. If your really into something, you tend to start young.
Because criminal activity results in their being a victim who deserves justice as does wider society!
I got into politics at a very young age and support voting at 16 as those who are not into politics are unliklely to vote anyway. Most politicians get into politics at a young age too as do most people in professions like sports/actors etc etc. If your really into something, you tend to start young.
Society also has a responsibility to children, who by the way, are often victims themselves. What about insanity? Would you accept that a schizophrenic has diminished responsibility?
If you got into politics young why still wait until 16 to vote?
It should be lowered, if anything. Raise it to 14 and you will see gangs giving guns to 13 year olds and getting them to carry out hits, safe in the knowledge that they will not face a minute in jail as a result (if anything, their life chances will improve as a result of it).
I totally agree with you. This society does not seem to understand that criminal adults use kids - mostly boys - to commit crimes on their behalf. So raising the age of criminal responsibility will only make more fireproof boys available for such criminals to use.
I say - lower the age to eight, as it used to be in Scotland until very recently.
No...the issue of how much young kids know "consequences" is irrelevant...if they know it's "wrong" to steal or hit...the consequences don't matter if they don't do it in the first place.
And at 8 virtually every child knows to hit or steal is wrong.
No...the issue of how much young kids know "consequences" is irrelevant...if they know it's "wrong" to steal or hit...the consequences don't matter if they don't do it in the first place.
And at 8 virtually every child knows to hit or steal is wrong.
It is virtually impossible for children below a certain age to fully understand that the difference between being "a bit bad" and serious wrongdoing. Knowing the consequences of your actions is central to the issue of legal capacity and not just where crime is concerned. That's precisely why there are certain types of civil transactions that children are either barred from becoming involved in, or that are voidable because of their lack of maturity and knowledge.
It's 12 years old in Scotland. Personally I think 10 is more appropriate.
It was recently raised from 8 to 12 in Scotland, after the chief prosecutor specifically said she thought it was ridiculous to have it so low. (The UN says anything below 12 is wrong).
Plus in Scotland, even above 12, most cases (except the most serious) don't go to court. They go to Children's Hearings which look at the offending on a welfare basis.
Trying 10 year olds for crimes like rape is insane. But doing it in a full adult court is just obscene. The English system is appalling.
I totally agree with you. This society does not seem to understand that criminal adults use kids - mostly boys - to commit crimes on their behalf. So raising the age of criminal responsibility will only make more fireproof boys available for such criminals to use.
I say - lower the age to eight, as it used to be in Scotland until very recently.
That's nonsense. If a person uses someone else to commit a crime for them, they are guilty of that crime, and can be tried and convicted of it.
If an eight year old was being used by someone older to do their deeds, it would be ridiculous to hold him or her responsible for it in any case, given the adult influence.
However horrific their upbringing, it shouldn't give them a 'get out of jail free'card until they are 14.
If anything, their upbringing will have condemned them to a life of being on the wrong side of society's rules, and most likely they are beyond help and need to be 'managed' or if necessary 'contained' They will probably be irretrievably damaged. They will always be a threat to themselves or other people.
That's not to say that my sympathy doesn't go out to those that have been damaged in such a way.
Comments
9-year-olds are part of society, and it would benefit them, surely.
On your second point, I think there's a difference between knowing what a crime is, and being responsible for your actions.
Is Baby P a common name in East London?
Quite right DP.
Their parents should be charged as well for allowing these feral kids to commit these and other acts. In the old days they would have been in secure accomodation.
Bring back the borstals, of course that wouldn't work, I forgot their human rights. Sadly they didn't afford the same rights to the poor kids they nearly killed.
5 years and anonimity, no punishment at all.
The law requires, (sometimes! when it suits them imo/experiences) for both the act to be committed and for the intent of the act to be done, its the latter that they like to play around with imo, the policeman who was convicted and then won his appeal for assaulting a woman in his custody is an example imo of this.
Anyway, being to immature to know what your doing is not really the same as not having intent imo and I can remember well the age of 10-12. If I was to do something terrible, then I would have known that it was wrong.
Things like not realising how dangerous it is to throw stones and eggs at cars, letting down tyres could be put down to immaturity, they won't realise that the driver can lose control and crash but if the OP is talking about an assault or worse, then they would know thats wrong.bad and therefore should be punnished for sure.
I agree they would know it's wrong and bad, but to me, that is not the point when you're talking about a ten year old. Of course, children who commit horrific crimes, especially against other children, need some kind of intensive attention by the authorities, to remove risk from others, and try to reduce their further reoffending. I just think there is more need to question WHY they are capable of such acts at such a young age ... why do they want to do wrong and bad things?
That can be done while they are in youth detention.
I know its a film but I'm reminded of the scene in the film Halloween where Doanld Pleasance playing the doctor/shrink said something about the killer " I spent 8 years trying to reach him and another 7 trying to make sure he stays locked up as I realised that what was behind those eyes was purely and simply.......EVIL".
Now I'm not attributing that to whover these kids are in this thread, but the analogy is, that kids can be detained and punnished for their crimes while attempts at rehabilitations go on as well. The latter should not be a substitute to detain people and punnish them though.
If you said anything to them you got back a load of foul language and if you threaten to call the Police they said, Go ahead we are all under age they wont do anything!!
As for telling their Parents, That was also a waste of time for all you got was a load of abuse from them as well,
If anything the age should be loward as some kids know how to play the system!!
Criminalise bitter horrible spikey people and let kids have fun.
dystopic u got it u built it you brought it condxemn the offspring but realise their roots are in your soiled soil, weed them out but how, your furrowed brow conceals more vegetative vermin than an inocent's concept of life, it's all on you! You're the mad one, you're the baying mob, you are the fecund beast slavering saliva and spitting vitriol at your own offspring, oh deranged beast, humanity...what have you become????
Shed atear, those who can relent from this march of anger and remember those days of fellowship and loev. Bear in mind the weary traveller, and cook him a meal. For we all are in some way marchng alone x
/sanctimony
It has only recently been raised from 8 to 12. 12 is about right in my opinion. It's not simply a case about children knowing right from wrong. It's also about understanding the implications and consequences of their actions. Such understanding increases with age.
However horrific their upbringing, it shouldn't give them a 'get out of jail free'card until they are 14.
If anything, their upbringing will have condemned them to a life of being on the wrong side of society's rules, and most likely they are beyond help and need to be 'managed' or if necessary 'contained' They will probably be irretrievably damaged. They will always be a threat to themselves or other people.
That's not to say that my sympathy doesn't go out to those that have been damaged in such a way.
Because criminal activity results in their being a victim who deserves justice as does wider society!
I got into politics at a very young age and support voting at 16 as those who are not into politics are unliklely to vote anyway. Most politicians get into politics at a young age too as do most people in professions like sports/actors etc etc. If your really into something, you tend to start young.
Society also has a responsibility to children, who by the way, are often victims themselves. What about insanity? Would you accept that a schizophrenic has diminished responsibility?
If you got into politics young why still wait until 16 to vote?
I totally agree with you. This society does not seem to understand that criminal adults use kids - mostly boys - to commit crimes on their behalf. So raising the age of criminal responsibility will only make more fireproof boys available for such criminals to use.
I say - lower the age to eight, as it used to be in Scotland until very recently.
And at 8 virtually every child knows to hit or steal is wrong.
It is virtually impossible for children below a certain age to fully understand that the difference between being "a bit bad" and serious wrongdoing. Knowing the consequences of your actions is central to the issue of legal capacity and not just where crime is concerned. That's precisely why there are certain types of civil transactions that children are either barred from becoming involved in, or that are voidable because of their lack of maturity and knowledge.
Plus in Scotland, even above 12, most cases (except the most serious) don't go to court. They go to Children's Hearings which look at the offending on a welfare basis.
Trying 10 year olds for crimes like rape is insane. But doing it in a full adult court is just obscene. The English system is appalling.
If an eight year old was being used by someone older to do their deeds, it would be ridiculous to hold him or her responsible for it in any case, given the adult influence.
They are clearly disgusting, vile people.
I don't care if they're ten. To do that is just wrong. Lock them up. For life.
Exactly.