Criminal Justice?
News early this week that two boys aged 10 and 11 have been found guilty of attempting to rape an eight-year-old girl has once again opened up the debate on how children should be treated in court and if a child of 10 can be held responsible for a crime.
The pair - two of the country's youngest convicted sex offenders - were found guilty by an Old Bailey jury. They were acquitted of two charges of rape. Following the case there has been much debate over the way the boys were treated. Many say if the boys had done wrong they should be "helped" and a child under the age of 12 cannot understand when they are doing wrong and therefore should not be prosecuted. Others argue a child of 10 should know right from wrong.
England initially had the lowest age of criminal responsibility in Europe, at the age of seven. In the early sixties this age was raised to 10 which is still one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in Europe. Only Scotland (age eight) and Switzerland (age seven) have lower ages.
But it is an emotive issue and one which will continue to cause much debate. For the families of the victims of any crime committed by a child they quite rightly want to see justice done and the appropriate punishment given. To simply say the person who has hurt your son/daughter so much "needs help" will probably do nothing more than anger the families of victims. There is also evidence to suggest that youngsters who commit crime are far more likely to continue to commit crime in adult life unless they are properly punished.
This is an issue which is likely to prove to be an interesting debate for the new government and one to keep a close eye on. While the Conservatives appear to have tried to distance themselves from calls for the age of criminal responsibility to be raised, the Liberal Democrats have supported the calls. So who will win the vote? And will it make a difference? The answers to these questions will only be known with time.
COMMENTS
No comments added for this entry.
POST A COMMENT
