The age of criminal responsibility

Furryanimal

Furryanimal

Y gath o Gymru
Location
Wales
In Scotland there is a proposal to raise this to twelve years of age. I believe it is currently ten throughout the UK. Your thoughts.
 

I think in Oklahoma the age is 7. To me the age is not as important as the penalty/punishment, if both are in sync then I don't see a problem.
 

I'm in favor of the old adage, "if you do the crime you do the time" at any age.

But.

I feel consideration of type of punishment should be made if the non adult was physically and or mentally abused or is mentally ill.
 
It's just a bit of tidying up really. While the age of responsibility is currently 8, which is clearly too young, children of this age cannot be put before the courts.

We are simply bringing ourselves into line with most of Europe.

In these days of feckless parenting many adults don't know the difference between right and wrong, let alone 8 tear okds!
 
I always wonder about the child's understanding of consequenses of their actions at a young age. Are they able to understand the long term results of their actions? With all the crap on TV, and with parents not always being the best role models and all. But then again, not far from where I live a boy of 11 or 12 killed a 6 year old boy who was walking to a park about 2 blocks from his home. The kid is still in jail and it has been about 15 years. I will try to find a link, but look up the name Eric Smith.
 
I feel 12-14 is about right to be tried as adult for a violent crime. Before that age it get murky. Before ten there can be that magical thinking idea of death not being quite so real. Also being accountable for one's actions. Obviously a child committing a crime needs punishment too but is also probably deeply troubled. Under 14 and perhaps therapy and rehabilitation in a controlled setting.

By 14 a child has a definite sense of right and wrong...if they don't by 14 they never will. They should be tried as adults and incarcerated.
 
Laurie said:
It's just a bit of tidying up really. While the age of responsibility is currently 8, which is clearly too young, children of this age cannot be put before the courts.

We are simply bringing ourselves into line with most of Europe.

In these days of feckless parenting many adults don't know the difference between right and wrong, let alone 8 tear okds!
Click to expand...


I would call that a cynical view, but sadly, I believe that it is a correct assessment.
 
In most cases, I believe children should be tried as juveniles. Knowing right from wrong is usually learned at a young age but immaturity sometimes leads to poor decisions. Younger children and even teens can also be influenced by peer pressure and even adults. Depending on the seriousness of the crime, they can be tried as adults. Age of reason? I'd have to go with 12-14.
 
Some interesting points, but think back to when you were ten tears old or even younger.

I'll wager you knew very well what would get you a whomping if you got caught!

A little "natural" upbringing wouldn't go amiss is some cases.

A lion cub who takes food is soon taught the error of its wats!
 
Laurie said:
Some interesting points, but think back to when you were ten tears old or even younger.

I'll wager you knew very well what would get you a whomping if you got caught!

A little "natural" upbringing wouldn't go amiss is some cases.

A lion cub who takes food is soon taught the error of its wats!
Click to expand...

Depends on the type of crime. A felony might require mitigation for a child. I'm not saying there should be no punishment, age should be considered. Yes, we grew up in simpler times but "whomping" is no longer an acceptable part of child-rearing. They refer to it as child abuse now here in my country. It seemed to be pretty effective when I grew up, the majority of us seemed to fall in line.
 
Well, when I was growing up, the fear of said whomping was a very effective deterrent to misbehavior. My dad was no abuser, by any stretch, or mean, or anything like that, but I knew that I needed to toe the line, or else. Not sure what the "or else" really WAS, but simply the idea of getting in BIG trouble with my dad was enough.

IMHO, that's part of the problem with out of control kids today -- no respect for their parents as authority figures, or any other authority figures, for that matter. Entirely too much worry about hurting the little darlings feelings and not enough teaching them at a young age what behavior is acceptable and what is not. I knew absolutely where the line was and for the most part stayed on the good side of it, as did my peers. Not that we didn't do normal kid things and act up, but NOTHING like you read about nowdays.
 
I do not believe that there should be a specific age written into law by where a criminal "graduates" from juvenile to adult. Inner cities... kids 7 and 8 years old are raised in criminal environments where they know what they are doing is wrong. Oft times, juveniles are used by crime lords to rob, shoot, and kill simply because they won't be tried as adults. Kids from wealthy families are often "excused" from prosecution as juvenile offenders when they positively know their actions are criminal. Other children raised in a more "guarded" environment may be quite a bit older before understanding they are making a big error in judgment.

IOW, with the disparity in family, environment, culture, etc. it is time each case is tried on its own specific grounds. Both prosecution and defense will have an opportunity to prove whether a decision was made knowingly and willingly and, if so, the criminal needs to be prosecuted accordingly.

The downside of this is that we would need some modifications in our prison system. I cannot see putting a 12 year old criminal in a prison with 40 and 50 year olds.
 
IMHO effective parenting like effective dog ownership should not include beating or " whomping" or whatever silly terms you want to use. Seriously if I knew then what I know now...wouldn't have had any human kids at all. But by the time I had dogs I understood. I am the all mighty food giver person. If you make me happy very wonderful things can happen. But make me say your name a certain way...oh no, you do not even want to IMAGINE what could happen, no no no...that is authority.

The consequences of physical punishment can go haywire in so very many ways. Some kids will end up becoming cowed by authority enough to behave and stay in line and all that good stuff. For some kids it can lead to fear and depression...which can end up leading to self medicating or self harm. At the other end are kids who begin ticking in early childhood. Spanking and beating make them even more angry and unstable. Those are the kids who end up committing serious crimes.
 
fureverywhere said:
IMHO effective parenting like effective dog ownership should not include beating or " whomping" or whatever silly terms you want to use. Seriously if I knew then what I know now...wouldn't have had any human kids at all. But by the time I had dogs I understood. I am the all mighty food giver person. If you make me happy very wonderful things can happen. But make me say your name a certain way...oh no, you do not even want to IMAGINE what could happen, no no no...that is authority.

The consequences of physical punishment can go haywire in so very many ways. Some kids will end up becoming cowed by authority enough to behave and stay in line and all that good stuff. For some kids it can lead to fear and depression...which can end up leading to self medicating or self harm. At the other end are kids who begin ticking in early childhood. Spanking and beating make them even more angry and unstable. Those are the kids who end up committing serious crimes.
Click to expand...
Yes! Kids who were whomped but grew up "normal" did it in spite of spanking not because of it.
 
Yes it is 10 in the UK .A child cannot be prosecuted under that age. To avoid prosecution is the young person they however can have what is called an ASBO which is an Anti Social Behavioural Order put on them.

I am dead against upgrading a youngster to adult court because the crime is a bad one, it has to be all one or the other. A child id a child and yes I know many seem mature but in reality they are not, they may know the difference between right and wrong perhaps but they don't have the lifeskills or maturity to make decisions like an adult as they haven't lived long enough so why should they be charged as adults. The can't legally smoke, drink, join the army ,vote or get married unless adult because they are not grown up. if they can't legally drink a beer how on earth can they be charged as an adult with a severe crime. I never committed any crimes but I know I did things when younger that I would frown on now.
 
I think of my husband's brother. My husband was the oldest and got the worst punishments. My mother in law thought a wooden spoon was an ideal discipline instrument. Of course they can break so then you have to get inventive. My husband forgave his mother eventually and nursed her until her death.

His brother was bitter towards his parents and siblings from the beginning. Now you have a loose cannon forty year old who hates every one and every thing. It's pitiful what some people do to children. But there are also demon children...I had two of them so I know. In retrospect several good beatings might have at least made me feel better...gallows humor there.
 
IKE said:
I'm in favor of the old adage, "if you do the crime you do the time" at any age.

But.

I feel consideration of type of punishment should be made if the non adult was physically and or mentally abused or is mentally ill.
Click to expand...



Really? How about a 4-year old boy that wakes from his nap, opens his daddy's nightstand, pulls out a .25 mm pistol and shoots his mommy while she was still napping? Luckily, he only hit the right bicep.
 
A four year old doesn't have the intellectual capacity for much of anything. A unlocked loaded pistol should never be accessible...in that case the owner of the gun is at fault, not the child.
 
They are talking about a Fagin's law over here. It is a law that will crack down on criminals who recruit underage children into their criminal activities. Knowing that the law must view children differently they are used as front line couriers in gangs and as pick pockets and thieves. This way the adults are less likely to be caught and go to gaol. I approve of Fagin's law.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-...getting-kids-to-commit-crime-victoria/8091696

IMO children should be tried in juvenile courts and housed in juvenile detention centres. Both institutions should recognise that children are not fully matured and every effort should be made to lead them to better futures.
 
fureverywhere said:
A four year old doesn't have the intellectual capacity for much of anything. A unlocked loaded pistol should never be accessible...in that case the owner of the gun is at fault, not the child.
Click to expand...

I was replying to IKE's post and the part "any age." We need to be careful when lumping ages, people, etc. together.

In this case, it was declared as an accident and went no further. As is the case at times, the DA took into consideration that the man had four children and the family's loss of income, had he gone to jail, could have been devastating. But, if the mother had been more seriously injured or worse, the penalty may have also changed.
 
fureverywhere said:
IMHO effective parenting like effective dog ownership should not include beating or " whomping" or whatever silly terms you want to use. Seriously if I knew then what I know now...wouldn't have had any human kids at all. But by the time I had dogs I understood. I am the all mighty food giver person. If you make me happy very wonderful things can happen. But make me say your name a certain way...oh no, you do not even want to IMAGINE what could happen, no no no...that is authority.

The consequences of physical punishment can go haywire in so very many ways. Some kids will end up becoming cowed by authority enough to behave and stay in line and all that good stuff. For some kids it can lead to fear and depression...which can end up leading to self medicating or self harm. At the other end are kids who begin ticking in early childhood. Spanking and beating make them even more angry and unstable. Those are the kids who end up committing serious crimes.
Click to expand...

I was certainly never "beaten," nor anything closely resembling that. I could expect a "whomp" on the backside if I seriously misbehaved (not like for not cleaning up my room or something like that, but for instance the time I very misguidedly told my mother to shut up, and in the presence of my father, no less). Didn't do me any harm, and taught me early on that actions have consequences.
 
It varies in the U.S. Where I live a 15 year old boy recently killed a male classmate by beheading him and dumping his body by the river. He cut off the victims hands too. He's going to be tried as an adult considering the violent nature of the crime.
 
Butterfly said:
I was certainly never "beaten," nor anything closely resembling that. I could expect a "whomp" on the backside if I seriously misbehaved (not like for not cleaning up my room or something like that, but for instance the time I very misguidedly told my mother to shut up, and in the presence of my father, no less). Didn't do me any harm, and taught me early on that actions have consequences.
Click to expand...

Another vote for a well placed "pop" on the seat, it only takes one or two, after that "the look" is usually enough to quell a riot.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top