age of criminal resposibility

Currently reading:
age of criminal resposibility

custard

Status: DEFCON Grumpy
Joined
Nov 4, 2003
Messages
48,610
Location
Edinburgh
so is a 10 year old aware and answerable for manaslaughter?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7053482.stm

10 - England, Wales
14 - Italy, Germany, Spain
15 - Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden
16 - Portugal
18 - Belgium and Luxembourg
Source: The Just Umbrella

imagine no resposibility in the UK until 18???
 

FDF

Marea Scrappaged :(
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
1,557
Location
In my head
I knew the difference between right and wrong at 10, kids these days are no different.

I've been to Luxembourg, it's one of the most law abiding places in the world!! Pedestrians wait for the light to change before crossing, car drivers always stop at zebra crossings, pedesrians over there don't even need to look right and left.
 
Last edited:

Venters

bairns, not bombs.
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
14,845
Location
Hades by the River Styx
If you can do the crime you can do the time.

Just waiting for a case where a kid in a nursery pushes another kid who falls and takes a bang to the head.
3 year old getting 6 months for assault that will teach em. :p
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
1,644
Location
Somerset
This is a good debate,
I agree that the age of responsibility should be raised to at least 16, maybe even 18.
Hang on, before you start on me, I have a good reason...
If you punished the parents for the crime instead, maybe even treat them as if they had commited the crime themselves, surely this would force bad parents into keeping a closer eye on their kids and teaching them right from wrong instead of letting their kids roam the streets and having no idea what they're up to.
 

izzy eckerslike

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
137
Whats the alternative? the kids get off scott free or maybe the parents should be imprissoned for lack of control over their bratts, 10 year old kids are well aware of right or wrong & no doubt are seen as hero's by their mates
thats why getting an ASBO is seen as a status symbol.
Kids as young as 10 & 11 have even been involved in rape attacks on even younger girls, where will it all end? Whilst the Do gooders plead for the perpetrators of crime to be let off without a thought for the victims the country sinks to even lower depths of drug fuelled crime (n)
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2004
Messages
15,373
Location
southend on sea, essex
id say 10 is too low just about, 14 is too high, 12 is about right imo, but saying that, i know 10 year olds which do just as bad things as 15 yr olds, so maybe it should be kept as 10.
 

luvduvs

SNAP!
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
4,462
Location
Sydney
Whether someone knows what they're doing is right or wrong is totally irrelevant, as is their age. You take someone's life away, yours should be taken away as well. You take someone's life away accidentally, yours should be taken away as well.

Underlying point is trying to be as fair as possible.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
1,644
Location
Somerset
Whats the alternative? the kids get off scott free or maybe the parents should be imprissoned for lack of control over their bratts, 10 year old kids are well aware of right or wrong & no doubt are seen as hero's by their mates
thats why getting an ASBO is seen as a status symbol.
Kids as young as 10 & 11 have even been involved in rape attacks on even younger girls, where will it all end? Whilst the Do gooders plead for the perpetrators of crime to be let off without a thought for the victims the country sinks to even lower depths of drug fuelled crime (n)

yes but in this case the police could've taken the parents to court because they failed to teach their kids that it's wrong to chuck stones at people.
Maybe they should do that anyway.
My kids wouldn't do it because thay know it's wrong. We teach them right and wrong and if they do step out of line they're punished.
Maybe 16 is too high but no lower than 14.
 
OP
OP
custard

custard

Status: DEFCON Grumpy
Joined
Nov 4, 2003
Messages
48,610
Location
Edinburgh
i'll be honest i dont know the answer.i see right little bastards but at the same time i see nice little well behaved kids so perhaps the 10 should stay given well behaved law abiding kids would never fall foul of this?
 
OP
OP
custard

custard

Status: DEFCON Grumpy
Joined
Nov 4, 2003
Messages
48,610
Location
Edinburgh
had a pair yesterday who got lippy and one was almost my 1st real life krav maga test dummy ;)
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
1,644
Location
Somerset
had a pair yesterday who got lippy and one was almost my 1st real life krav maga test dummy ;)

I was wondering why the son in this case didn't do anything.
If the father was in his 60's I'm presuming his son was an adult. If that was me with my Dad I would have gone over as soon as the first stone was thrown and given them a good slap.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
714
yes but in this case the police could've taken the parents to court because they failed to teach their kids that it's wrong to chuck stones at people.
Maybe they should do that anyway.
My kids wouldn't do it because thay know it's wrong. We teach them right and wrong and if they do step out of line they're punished.
Maybe 16 is too high but no lower than 14.


If a stone hits you it hurts, if you throw a stone at someone else you know its going to hurt them. What's to teach?
Once you know that, and everyone does by age 10, you know when you throw a stone at someone its going to hurt them.

Conclusion
They threw stones at people to inflict pain.
They knew what they were doing.
Age is just a diversionary argument.

Some poor kid watched his father stoned and die.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
1,644
Location
Somerset
If a stone hits you it hurts, if you throw a stone at someone else you know its going to hurt them. What's to teach?
Once you know that, and everyone does by age 10, you know when you throw a stone at someone its going to hurt them.

Conclusion
They threw stones at people to inflict pain.
They knew what they were doing.
Age is just a diversionary argument.

Some poor kid watched his father stoned and die.

another good point...I think my arguement has failed :eek:
 
OP
OP
custard

custard

Status: DEFCON Grumpy
Joined
Nov 4, 2003
Messages
48,610
Location
Edinburgh
I was wondering why the son in this case didn't do anything.
If the father was in his 60's I'm presuming his son was an adult. If that was me with my Dad I would have gone over as soon as the first stone was thrown and given them a good slap.

hard to comment,could have been over quickly.
if his dad fell he would have went to aid his dad
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
13,105
Location
Watford
"According to Mr Cummines, then they will feel anger that they cannot go back to their family as they realise what they did was a game that went wrong."

A GAME? Sorry, but a ten year old knows that throwing stones is wrong and is going to hurt someone. Throwing a hail of stones is going to cause some serious damage. It was malicious behaviour that resulted in the death of an innocent man, not something I'd ever regard as "a game".

The thing is, if the kids involved weren't charged and punished what SHOULD we do with them? Ignore them? Tell them that they were "naughty" and "not to do it again"? How can you get through to them that what they did KILLED someone?

I forget which child psychologist it was, but children are able to understand reasoning by the age of about 5 - 6 years. At that point they should also be grasping morals and rights and wrongs, plus what kind of behaviour is appropriate when out in public i.e. NOT throwing stones/ rocks at people. By 10 years old a kid should know that it is wrong to throw stones, use knives, hit someones head with a heavy object etc. At some point they also have to take responsibility for their actions otherwise they'll continue to act like little bastards and then hide behind mummy's skirt when it all goes wrong.

The answer? I don't know. Severe punishment is required if we're going to deter other kids from behaving the same way otherwise the message will get across that it is ok act like thugs as they'll get away from it. The parents also need to take on more responsibility for their own kids. Once again where were the parents in all this? Totally unaware that their kids were roaming the streets? Totally unaware that their kids could behave the way they did? Perhaps bad parenting really is the cause of all this and the parents should be punished hard as a result.

Perhaps one answer can be found in New York City where it became illegal for groups of youths to hang around on the streets and curfews were implemented too. If caught kids could be escorted home by the Police, and if caught more than twice the PARENTS WOULD BE PROSECUTED. It sounds drastic but the zero tolerance policy drastically reduced crime and forced parents to take more responsibility for their own kid's actions.

However, it is unlikely to work over here because some do gooder civil liberties campaign group would bleat that it was taking away human rights and they would get it thrown out in court. Once again it would get the message across that the kids were untouchable and could do what they wanted with no recourse for their actions :bang:
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
1,644
Location
Somerset


Perhaps one answer can be found in New York City where it became illegal for groups of youths to hang around on the streets and curfews were implemented too. If caught kids could be escorted home by the Police, and if caught more than twice the PARENTS WOULD BE PROSECUTED. It sounds drastic but the zero tolerance policy drastically reduced crime and forced parents to take more responsibility for their own kid's actions.


this sounds like a good idea.
I think some local councils have similar schemes but I'd like to see it on a national level.
 

bozzy

Veracocha
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
3,706
Location
Birmingham, United Kingdo
This all brings the Jamie Bolger case to mind. If the law was changed then there would have been two murderous 10/11 year olds out there playing with our kids. Leave it at 10.
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
13,105
Location
Watford
this sounds like a good idea.
I think some local councils have similar schemes but I'd like to see it on a national level.

One south west London borough tried to bring such a curfew in conjunction with the local Police a few years back. The public wanted it and the Police wanted it, but some stupid civil liberties lawyer took it to court and had it thrown out :bang:

To be constructive I'd also add that we need to give youths more places to go to where they can be supervised. Youth clubs, sports centres, activity centres or whatever. That way they CAN be out of the house but at least they can be kept under supervision.

For those that disagree then I put it this way. If you are not legally responsible for your actions in public then you should be under supervision. If you don't want to be under supervision, then you have to be able to take full responsibility for your actions. Can't say fairer than that :)
 
Top