Minimum age of responsibility

[said]

Should the minimum prosecution age be raised, At present, the minimum age is 10 years old where a child can be arrested and prosecuted - it is being debated now, to raise that age to twelve years old.

I strongly disagree with raising the minimum age - there are hundreds of young people. even younger than ten, who have either taken part in or have individually carried out crime in the UK. The punishment for these young people is ineffectual and could encourage them to become career criminals - such punishment is viewed by the youngsters to be a minor inconvenience only.

Several adults with a mental age of eight or less have been prosecuted as adults - what is the difference?

[Hamble]

No.

There are punishments for under 10's

•Local Child Curfew
•Child Safety Order

Plus.
They can be taken into care.
The parents can be held responsible.

[said]

No.

There are punishments for under 10's

•Local Child Curfew
•Child Safety Order

Plus.
They can be taken into care.
The parents can be held responsible.

The parents should be held responsible as a first priority.

[Hamble]

The parents should be held responsible as a first priority.

I definitely think the parents lifestyle and behaviour should be
part of the decision in how to punish a child who offends.

[ausard2]

Reality. I go out and buy a dog and it bites someone ,I get fined.
If it savages someone I get charged.
People have kids and think the kids are not their responsibility , guess
what .Your kid breaks a window you will pay for it .LOGICS

[carliol]

Reality. I go out and buy a dog and it bites someone ,I get fined.
If it savages someone I get charged.
People have kids and think the kids are not their responsibility , guess
what .Your kid breaks a window you will pay for it .LOGICS

Not sure what your point is

[ausard2]

My point is children are not idiots.
No matter where you put the age what that child does, the parent is responsible.

[Hamble]

My point is children are not idiots.
No matter where you put the age what that child does, the parent is responsible.

The parent is held responsible for allowing the child to offend by neglect or coercion or putting a child in danger.

Look up
Doli incapax

Briefly
Quote
......."The defense of infancy is a form of defense known as an excuse so that defendants falling within the definition of an "infant" are excluded from criminal liability for their actions, if at the relevant time, they had not reached an age of criminal responsibility. After reaching the initial age, there may be levels of responsibility dictated by age and the type of offense committed.

Under the English common law the defense of infancy was expressed as a set of presumptions in a doctrine known as doli incapax. A child under the age of seven was presumed incapable of committing a crime. The presumption was conclusive, prohibiting the prosecution from offering evidence that the child had the capacity to appreciate the nature and wrongfulness of what he had done. Children aged seven to under fourteen were presumed incapable of committing a crime but the presumption was rebuttable. The prosecution could overcome the presumption by proving that the child understood what he was doing and that it was wrong. In fact capacity was a necessary element of the state's case. If the state failed to offer sufficient evidence of capacity the infant was entitled to have the charges dismissed at the close of the state's evidence. Doli incapax was abolished in England and Wales in 1998, but persists in other common law jurisdictions."


The minimum age is partly to decide child comprehension (not the same as understanding the difference between right and wrong)and partly to keep children out of the adult penal system.

[said]

The parent is held responsible for allowing the child to offend by neglect or coercion or putting a child in danger.

Look up
Doli incapax

Briefly
Quote
......."The defense of infancy is a form of defense known as an excuse so that defendants falling within the definition of an "infant" are excluded from criminal liability for their actions, if at the relevant time, they had not reached an age of criminal responsibility. After reaching the initial age, there may be levels of responsibility dictated by age and the type of offense committed.

Under the English common law the defense of infancy was expressed as a set of presumptions in a doctrine known as doli incapax. A child under the age of seven was presumed incapable of committing a crime. The presumption was conclusive, prohibiting the prosecution from offering evidence that the child had the capacity to appreciate the nature and wrongfulness of what he had done. Children aged seven to under fourteen were presumed incapable of committing a crime but the presumption was rebuttable. The prosecution could overcome the presumption by proving that the child understood what he was doing and that it was wrong. In fact capacity was a necessary element of the state's case. If the state failed to offer sufficient evidence of capacity the infant was entitled to have the charges dismissed at the close of the state's evidence. Doli incapax was abolished in England and Wales in 1998, but persists in other common law jurisdictions."


The minimum age is partly to decide child comprehension (not the same as understanding the difference between right and wrong)and partly to keep children out of the adult penal system.

Surely that would be dependant on whether the child spoke the truth or otherwise. It would be more than likely that a child will lie through their teeth if they thought it was to their benefit.

[Hamble]

Surely that would be dependant on whether the child spoke the truth or otherwise. It would be more than likely that a child will lie through their teeth if they thought it was to their benefit.

It is hard for a lie to stand up to cross examination.

A child under 10 may understand right from wrong and the meaning of a lie but not always understand the consequences of their actions.

This is easier to understand when you listen to a young child's(not in trouble) question's on injury and death.
They hear for the first time 'death' is final and doctor's cannot make every injured person 'better' again.

Brings me back to my earlier point of having my own children.
To understand a troubled child it is good to have a baseline of how
a non troubled child understands the consequences of their actions.