Minimum Age Of Criminal Responsibility
In all Australian legal jurisdictions, children under the age of ten are considered to be too young to have criminal intent. That means, that children under this age cannot be held legally responsible for their actions. Australia is the only region in the world to have uniform legal guidelines on the lower age limit of criminal responsibility. (Weijers, Grisso 2009 p.45). Having the presumption that children under the age of ten are unable to know the law completely, therefore not being able to have mens rea, is in my opinion, necessary in our criminal courts. This essay will look at the reasons for the necessary use of the minimum age of criminal responsibility, such as the Beijing rules, the convention
…show more content…
Goldon (2013) states there are two essential foundations in relation to the capacity test. These are cognitive and volitional. The cognitive element states that if the child has suitable ability - both to comprehend what the law wants them to do and the ability to understand the nature and reputation of any act committed, then the responsibility test is satisfied, therefore the child may be judiciously held accountable for the wrongdoing. The volitional element maintains that if the child has the capacity to exercise full control over their actions, then they could also be responsible. (Goldson 2013 p.115) Therefore, with these two elements, children under the age of ten are considered to be unable to fully appreciate the nature of the …show more content…
- Goldston, B (2013), ‘Unsafe, unjust and harmful to wider society’: Grounds for raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales’, Youth Justice, vol. 13, no. 2, 111-130.
- Keating, D. (1990): Adolescent thinking, in: S.S. Feldman and G.R. Elliott (eds.) At the threshold: The developing adolescent , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 54-–89.
- Seymour, J. (1988) ‘Children and the Criminal law’ in Dealing with young offenders, 178.
- Steinberg, L. (2002), Adolescence (6 th edition) New York: McGraw Hill.
- Urbas, G. (2000) ‘The Age of Criminal Responsibility’, Australian institute of criminology, trends and issues in crime and criminal justice, no.181., viewed 20 March 2015, 1.
Erikson, E. H. Late adolescence (1959). In S Schlein (Ed.), A way of looking at things (pp.
However, they are treated differently by the legal system when they commit a criminal offence. In NSW a child under the age of 10 is regarded as too young to form ‘mensrea’ which is referred to as doli incapax. As a result the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987(NSW) states that a child cannot be charged with a criminal offence under the legal system if the child is under 10 years. The principle of doli incapax in the criminal justice system is partially effective in giving rights to the children. However, it has raised concerns for the members of society in regards to justice for the victim as well as the society. This is shown in the case of Corey Davis - R v LMW [1999] NSWSC 1128 where a 10 year old boy threw 6 six years old Corey Davis in the water knowing that he could not swim. Corey’s death received great media outrage, especially when the children’s court ruled the offender not guilty of manslaughter due the principle of doli incapax. Nonetheless, the media attention and the negative public reaction towards the offender was perceived as a lack of justice for the society and the victim. therefore, the public pressure caused the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) to charge the offender with manslaughter This case somewhat reflects the effectiveness of the justice system to an extent of responding to public
Most young offenders get into trouble with the law only once. But the younger children are when they first break the law, the more likely they are to break the law again (Statistics Canada study, 2005). The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) attempts to acknowledge that different youth need different sentences within the justice system, while ensuring that it is fair and equitable for them. Many people, both in Canada, and around the world, believe that youth are not reprimanded harshly enough for the crimes they commit and that they are, in general, are able to squeeze through the justice system without punishment. Others, believe that the justice system does not treat youth fairly and punishes them without acknowledging that rehabilitation
Vandergoot determines that the reasoning capacity of an adolescent, the ability to make legal decisions, and filter unnecessary information is unclear to a juvenile in the justice system; the vagueness of youth stepping into the courts prevents them from fully participating in the justice system. ( Vandergoot, 2006). As a result of this impreciseness youth encounter Vandergoot concludes a separate justice system allocated for youth to adhere to adolescent needs. Vandergoot discusses the Youth Criminal Justice Act a justice system devised to adhere to youth needs. She summarizes the system that benefits young offenders in contrast to adult offenders. Vandergoot concludes “the goals of the youth legislation…its major objectives are reducing the use of incarceration for young offenders…the YCJA emphasizes restraint, accountability, proportionality, and discretion… it encourages use of extra judicial measures” ( Vandergoot, 2006, p30). Vandergoot determines that the objectives of the Youth Criminal Justice Act is in the interest of youth, however, she accounts for the long term effect on adolescence as well. Vandergoot concludes the emotional and social consequences as youth interact with the system. Vandergoot claims the system leaves juveniles “debased”, suffering an “assault on their self-image”, that “block or snares in the adolescent psyche”, ultimately lowering their motivation and self-esteem which advances youth to have the “they think I’m bad I’ll show them I’m bad” mentality(Vandergoot, 2006). The mentality that derives from direct encounters with the youth justice system, often damages the adolescence completely disregarding the purpose of a youth justice system. Mary Vandergoot’s Justice for Young Offenders Their Needs, Our Responses clearly emphasizes the need
Under age 7, ages 7-14, and over age 14 are the three age groups for determining children’s capacity to commit a crime. Children under the age of 7 that commit a crime have no criminal capacity, children between 7-14 children are presumed to not have criminal capacity, but it can be overturned, and children over 14 have the same capacity as adults.
Newburn, T., (2013) Criminology Tim Newburn. (2nd ed). 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon 0X14.4RN: Routledge.
Youth and juvenile crime is a common and serious issue in current society, and people, especially parents and educators, are pretty worried about the trend of this problem. According to Bala and Roberts, around 17% of criminals were youths, compared to 8% of Canadian population ranging between 12 to 18 years of age between 2003 and 2004 (2006, p37). As a big federal country, Canada has taken a series of actions since 1908. So far, there are three justice acts in the history of Canadian juvenile justice system, the 1908 Juvenile Delinquents Act, the 1982 Young Offenders Act, and the 2003 Youth Criminal Justice Act. In Canada, the judicial system and the principle of these laws have been debated for a long time. This paper will discuss how these three laws were defined and why one was replaced by another.
Punishment occurs to individuals who break the law. It is also used to maintain the level of crime and to protect community members in Australia. To determine that society is content with maintaining the crime rate, this essay will discuss punishment types given to offenders and how society justifies the use punishment. Additionally, providing a brief overview of the community correction and prions rates to show that communities prefer to incarcerate lawbreakers. Highlighting that crime rates are being maintained by looking at the personal crime rate for assault before concluding that Australian society feel safe enough to allow the criminal justice system to sustain the crime rate.
Children between 10 and 14 years of age may be found guilty of a crime
Until the late 19th century, children were tried in criminal courts with adults. According to common law, the law regarded children under the age of seven, as still in the infancy stage of moral development, while those over the age of fourteen, were morally developed and thus responsible for criminal offenses.
Conscious efforts to critique existing approaches to questions of crime and justice, demystify concepts and issues that are laden with political and ideological baggage, situate debates about crime control within a socio-historical context, and facilitate the imagination and exploration of alternative ways of thinking and acting in relation to crime and justice. (p. 3).
...hould be considered as reintegration would be easier for them. Looking into the background of offenders creates a more holistic picture of the minors allowing the jury to focus more on rehabilitation. For instance Miller a 14- year old killer was subsequently to have suffered years of abuse and violence in his parent’s home, and he had also tried to commit suicide several times (Dahl). The Eighth Amendment is crucial in the justice system as it spells out prohibition against cruelty and unusual punishment and hence the age of minors should be taken into consideration during convictions. At times, political undertones get in the way of the criminal justice system ‘ with being tough on crime’ being election pledges, but such statements ignore the need to integrate minors from poor background into the mainstream society and rehabilitation through alternative means.
New Releases. (n.d.). The adolescent brain: Beyond raging hormones. Retrieved November 30, 2013, from http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog-extra/the-adolescent-brain-beyond-raging-hormones
For a long time now, the age of criminal responsibility (the age in which someone can be tried as an adult for a crime) in Canada has been set at the age of 12. Over roughly the last 2 years, a great deal of citizens have been fighting to have the age of criminal responsibility raised to the age of 16, believing that 12 is too young. On the other hand, a handful of people want it to stay the same. Surprisingly, close to no one is in favour for lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 10, when that is what the age of criminal responsibility needs to be changed to. The reason why the age of criminal responsibility should be lowered is because at the age of 10, children know the difference between right and wrong, lowering it can be a strong
Stokes, D. 2004. Submission to the Youth Justice Agency. [Online] Available from: www.youthreach.ie [Accessed 7th May 2012]