Section 16 Of Children Essay
The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales in ten years old. Section 16 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 states: “The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is ten years old. All children under this age are presumed to be doli incapax (incapable of committing a crime). Children between the age of ten and seventeen that are arrested are taken into court but instead of being tried at an adult court they’re dealt with by the youth court furthermore; their sentences are different to adults who are charged. Instead of prisons young offenders are sent to special secure centres. By law, eighteen year olds are treated as adults. If charged they are sent to prisons which holds eighteen to twenty-five year olds instead of being sent to full adult prisons.
Until 1999, there was a legal belief that children under the age of fourteen did not know the difference between right and wrong, meaning they were not capable of committing an offence. This was rebuttable if the prosecution could convince the court that the child who had committed the crime knew what they were doing was extremely wrong. Under section 34 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the doli incapax presumption was abolished hence why children aged ten to thirteen are treated the same as those aged …show more content…
fourteen and over in criminal law.
The age of criminal responsibility means that children under the age of ten cannot be arrested or charged. If they have been caught there are alternative punishments that are given to those who commit a crime such as:
Local Child Curfew:
Police have the power to ban children under the age of ten from a public place between 9pm and 6am, unless they are accompanied by an adult. This curfew can last up to ninety days.
Child Safety Order:
This is put in place if the child has broken a Local Child Curfew. The child is supervised by a youth offending team, this type of punishment is put in effect for up to three months but sometimes it can last up to twelve months. If the child doesn’t comply with the order it’s up to the court whether the child should be put into care or not.
Other options instead of putting the child into care would be asking the parent of the child to attend a parenting programme, sign a Parenting Contract or given a Parenting Order by the court. Each option is a way of supporting the parents with the supervision of children and young people. It needs to be stressed that it is clear that young children know the difference between right and wrong but this does not mean that they are able to make an ethical judgement.
Figures show that children in the criminal justice will have a range of problems and experiences:
• 60% have significant speech, language or communication difficulties (Bryan 2007).
• The Department of Health suggests that 24% to 30% of children in the criminal justice system have a learning disability, and this rises to 50% for those who end up in custody (Healthy Children, Department of Health 2009).
• Children with special educational needs are over nine times more likely to be permanently excluded from school and there is a well evidenced correlation between school exclusion and offending behaviour (Graham 1995).
Children in the criminal justice system have higher than average mental health difficulties - depression (18%), anxiety disorders (10%) and psychotic-like symptoms (5%). One in ten boys and one in five girls have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Fazell 2008). There have been calls for change of the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales from 10 to 12 years old. Various researchers have looked at the emotional and intellectual capabilities of children and young people. Critics tend to argue that the age of criminal responsibility is too low rather than too high.
Under the 2003 Sexual Offences act a child under the age of thirteen is not capable to make choices when it comes to sexual activity, this raises the question if that is the case how can a child under thirteen is fit to be tried in a criminal court. Developmental psychology has suggested that the age to have reasoning that is similar to an adult is between fifteen and seventeen. But in contrast research has shown that the brain is still developing even when the person is in their early twenties. The importance to understand brain development is due to three reasons:
• Developed notions of morality depend upon a capacity for hypothetical reasoning – is it right that we should hold children morally responsible for their actions until they have developed capacity?
• The ability for children to understand is restricted by their lack of intellectual development and the capability of their way of thinking. Research shows that younger teenagers have a tendency of not fully understanding their rights in a police station and in a court, even if they have been explained to them in full detail. Ten to twelve year olds were considerably more likely to misinterpret their right to silence than thirteen to fifteen year olds, who in turn were less likely to understand than seventeen to twenty-three year olds.
• Even when children have an equivalent intellectual capacity to adults, it does not follow that they can reason at the same level. What needs to be noted is that the ability to make ‘moral judgments’ is influenced by their surroundings and upbringing; they also lack life experience and information that adults use to exercise their power of reason. We need to be aware that teenagers are more vulnerable to take part in bad behaviour to lack ability of understanding the consequences of their behaviours and are more subject to peer pressure.
England’s children commissioner has stated that children under the age of twelve who have committed a crime “did not fully understand their actions”. This statement is contradicted within criminology as it stresses that anyone who has committed a crime has done it off their own moral free-will.
With a society that is growing, children currently are better educated and becoming physically more mature, highlighting that children at the age of ten have been educated for years to know the difference between right and wrong, and the consequences that come with it. The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales will always be affected by the murder of James Bulger by two boys aged 10 and 11. England’s children commissioner Dr Maggie Atkinson said, James Bulger’s killers should have been helped to change their lives and not tried in an adult court. She also went on to say ‘such children were a danger to themselves and to others and they should be contained in secure settings.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said “We do not intend to raise the age of criminal responsibility. It is not in the interests of justice, of victims or the young people themselves to prevent serious offending being challenged.” In England and Wales, statistics show that there is a danger of criminalising a lot of young people and children for putting them behind bars for committing far less stern crimes.
The idea of the age of criminal responsibility is to show a widespread and practical age for someone to be held responsible for a crime they have committed. Due to there being some sort of moral, intellectual and emotional capacity needed to know the difference between right and wrong. It seems as if it’s asking children at the age of ten too much from them who possibly unable of doing that. Critics believe a child should not be put in a position where they are making decisions that seem far-reaching about their future without clear adult support.
In society to legally consent to sexual intercourse is sixteen; seventeen to drive a car; eighteen to marry and vote in the elections. Which raises the argument of why does society choose to treat children as young as ten as criminals when they commit a crime, and give them serious punishments.
In 2009 a research was published based on children that were aged fourteen and under who were serving Detention and Training Orders (Glover and Hibbert 2009) demonstrated that:
• 44% had experienced abuse within the family, compared with 16% in the general population.
• 16% had a Statement of Special Education Needs compared to 3% of the general population.
• 22% had been living in care, compared 3% of the general population.
• 8% had attempted suicide at some point in their short lives.
These statistics show that most children that get into crime have problems at home and school, they also have social problems that have not been dealt with. To teach these children and give them a better a chance it would be better to raise the age of criminal responsibility.
Detailed longitudinal research involving 4,100 children and young people concluded that the further enmeshed into the formal criminal justice system that children become, the more harm is done and the less likely they are to desist from offending (MaAra and McVie 2007)
The United Nations Committee, have raised concerns about the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales due to both having the lowest age in the EU. They have continuously expressed that the age of criminal responsibility being ten years old is not well-matched with the United Kingdom’s compulsion under international standards of juvenile justice and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The more common minimal age of criminal responsibility is fourteen years old and the UN committee on the Rights of the Child are in favour of increasing the age of twelve being the absolute minimal.
The minimum age as low as ten comes with concern. The first is the amount of youth in custody. In Europe, England and Wales are the highest in putting young people behind bars. England and Wales, imprison young people a hundred times more than Finland, twenty-five more times more than Belgium and four times more than Portugal. This could be a factor that leads to them having more multiple offences as they grow older. Due to a huge number of young people being put into custody, there is a negative perception by society towards young people. An increase of the minimal age will help the society create services that help problematic children improve their behaviour instead of putting arresting and convicting them.
Repeatedly the Government has said that they have no plans on rising the age of criminal responsibility from ten years old (Parliamentary Publications 2010/2011). Justice Minister Crispin Blunt stated the following: “The Government believe that children aged ten are able to distinguish between bad behaviour and serious wrongdoing. It is entirely appropriate to hold them to account for their actions if they commit an offence, and it is important to ensure that communities know that a young person who offends will be dealt with appropriately.” In the statement Justice Minister Crispin Blunt did acknowledge that the Government did know that prosecution is not “always the most appropriate response to youth offending.”
This has been addressed with the Government being in talks of possibly letting police have their intervention services for the youth who are charged with lower level crimes. Thus both punishing and helping the young offender become a better member of society, lowering the chances of them re-offending.
There have been major developments in neuroscience studies. This has indicated that the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales might be too low. The Royal Society Report (Neuroscience and the law, 2011) indicates that at the age of ten parts of the brain connected with decision making and judgement are still developing until the age of twenty. The report made the following conclusion ……’it is clear that at the age of ten the brain is developmentally immature, and continues to undergo important changes linked to regulating one’s own behaviour……’
The National Association for Youth Justice (NAYJ) strongly believe the reasons behind keeping the age of criminal responsibility at ten are unpersuasive. They all also believe that the only reason that the Government refuses to review the calls for change are to give the impression of being strict when it comes to crime committed by youth. The NAYJ stress that the criminalisation of children is a breach of the international standards of children’s rights. Criminalising children as young as ten can be damaging and unnecessary as the NAYJ believe that it does not take into consideration that children at that age are still developing.
Conservative MP Iain Duncan Smith released a report on youth justice.
The report called for the age of criminal responsibility to be raised from ten to twelve years old. The report made a list of recommendations such as; incorporate family and youth court to create a new family approach. Under section 37 of the Children’s Act 1989, it would give the youth court power to give permission to the authorities to investigate whether a child is vulnerable to major harm and under section 47 investigation under the Children’s Act – whether the authorities should interfere if the child’s welfare is at risk. This would then lead to welfare services that provide support to families to be
developed.
By making the age of criminal responsibility to twelve it would be for most grave offences such as; manslaughter, rape, aggravated sexual assault, murder and attempted murder. A further proposal that was included in the report was to focus on investing in early intervention services and improving the environment in custodial facilities.
With the age of criminal responsibility being ten in England and Wales, excluding other jurisdictions, it is known as the lowest in the European Union. Until recently, Scotland’s age of criminal responsibility was eight but was raised to twelve resulting in any child twelve ( section 52 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010) could not be prosecuted in the criminal court. But, the new rule did not take away the right for any child under eight years could be found guilty of an offence making it a minimal age of prosecution and not criminal responsibility. The Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) states that a child between eight and twelve years old can have the mental knowledge to commit a crime but can only be dealt with through the children’s hearing system. Similarly to England and Wales, the age of criminal responsibility in Northern Ireland is ten years old.
But a report by David Ford (September 2011) was distributed recommending that the age should be raised to twelve and after the review period that is should be raised to fourteen. The Northern Ireland Assembly have yet to respond to the report. When comparing to jurisdictions outside Europe, England and Wales stand out. In Hong Kong, Chile and Cuba, their age of criminal responsibility is sixteen. It is twelve years old in, Canada, Mongolia, Azerbaijan and Zambia. Through an international survey, the average age for criminal responsibility is fourteen. The UN Committee on the Rights of Children have now a specific look at what the suitable minimal age of criminal responsibility should be. Various states are pushed to increase their age of criminal responsibility with twelve being the minimum and England and Wales, are criticised at their choice of not complying with their suggestions.
Other countries look for alternatives to prosecution. In France, educational intervention is given priority and proceedings do not take place. In Italy, pre-trial supervision is used and where successful, prosecution does not ensue. Where a young person is involved in criminal activities we should be asking how and why this young person has fallen through the welfare net – not criminalising them. Adults are not paying sufficient attention to the needs of the young or identifying early warning signs.
The government and other responsible authorities need to consider how early criminalisation has an effect on young people’s lives and their future. Instead of the criminal justice system addressing the problem of a problematic youth, it should be dealt with by the welfare system. This then leads to finding a way to help young offenders improve their behaviour to become a better asset to society thus lowering the chances of re-offending.
The age of criminal responsibility should be raised to at least 12 years, the absolute minimum recommended by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. Young people who leave custody do need support on developing their skills which can later be used in society; this is why some sort of rehabilitation plan is needed. Re-offending will be reduced if young offenders are engaged in some sort of resettlement programme before leaving custody.
This debate is not about right and wrong. A six-year-old will know the difference between right and wrong but this does not make them criminally responsible. The debate needs to move away from issues of right and wrong and focus on the question of what is the right thing for us to do in relation to children of this age (All Party Parliamentary Group for Children, 2010).
Until 1999, there was a legal belief that children under the age of fourteen did not know the difference between right and wrong, meaning they were not capable of committing an offence. This was rebuttable if the prosecution could convince the court that the child who had committed the crime knew what they were doing was extremely wrong. Under section 34 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the doli incapax presumption was abolished hence why children aged ten to thirteen are treated the same as those aged …show more content…
fourteen and over in criminal law.
The age of criminal responsibility means that children under the age of ten cannot be arrested or charged. If they have been caught there are alternative punishments that are given to those who commit a crime such as:
Local Child Curfew:
Police have the power to ban children under the age of ten from a public place between 9pm and 6am, unless they are accompanied by an adult. This curfew can last up to ninety days.
Child Safety Order:
This is put in place if the child has broken a Local Child Curfew. The child is supervised by a youth offending team, this type of punishment is put in effect for up to three months but sometimes it can last up to twelve months. If the child doesn’t comply with the order it’s up to the court whether the child should be put into care or not.
Other options instead of putting the child into care would be asking the parent of the child to attend a parenting programme, sign a Parenting Contract or given a Parenting Order by the court. Each option is a way of supporting the parents with the supervision of children and young people. It needs to be stressed that it is clear that young children know the difference between right and wrong but this does not mean that they are able to make an ethical judgement.
Figures show that children in the criminal justice will have a range of problems and experiences:
• 60% have significant speech, language or communication difficulties (Bryan 2007).
• The Department of Health suggests that 24% to 30% of children in the criminal justice system have a learning disability, and this rises to 50% for those who end up in custody (Healthy Children, Department of Health 2009).
• Children with special educational needs are over nine times more likely to be permanently excluded from school and there is a well evidenced correlation between school exclusion and offending behaviour (Graham 1995).
Children in the criminal justice system have higher than average mental health difficulties - depression (18%), anxiety disorders (10%) and psychotic-like symptoms (5%). One in ten boys and one in five girls have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Fazell 2008). There have been calls for change of the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales from 10 to 12 years old. Various researchers have looked at the emotional and intellectual capabilities of children and young people. Critics tend to argue that the age of criminal responsibility is too low rather than too high.
Under the 2003 Sexual Offences act a child under the age of thirteen is not capable to make choices when it comes to sexual activity, this raises the question if that is the case how can a child under thirteen is fit to be tried in a criminal court. Developmental psychology has suggested that the age to have reasoning that is similar to an adult is between fifteen and seventeen. But in contrast research has shown that the brain is still developing even when the person is in their early twenties. The importance to understand brain development is due to three reasons:
• Developed notions of morality depend upon a capacity for hypothetical reasoning – is it right that we should hold children morally responsible for their actions until they have developed capacity?
• The ability for children to understand is restricted by their lack of intellectual development and the capability of their way of thinking. Research shows that younger teenagers have a tendency of not fully understanding their rights in a police station and in a court, even if they have been explained to them in full detail. Ten to twelve year olds were considerably more likely to misinterpret their right to silence than thirteen to fifteen year olds, who in turn were less likely to understand than seventeen to twenty-three year olds.
• Even when children have an equivalent intellectual capacity to adults, it does not follow that they can reason at the same level. What needs to be noted is that the ability to make ‘moral judgments’ is influenced by their surroundings and upbringing; they also lack life experience and information that adults use to exercise their power of reason. We need to be aware that teenagers are more vulnerable to take part in bad behaviour to lack ability of understanding the consequences of their behaviours and are more subject to peer pressure.
England’s children commissioner has stated that children under the age of twelve who have committed a crime “did not fully understand their actions”. This statement is contradicted within criminology as it stresses that anyone who has committed a crime has done it off their own moral free-will.
With a society that is growing, children currently are better educated and becoming physically more mature, highlighting that children at the age of ten have been educated for years to know the difference between right and wrong, and the consequences that come with it. The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales will always be affected by the murder of James Bulger by two boys aged 10 and 11. England’s children commissioner Dr Maggie Atkinson said, James Bulger’s killers should have been helped to change their lives and not tried in an adult court. She also went on to say ‘such children were a danger to themselves and to others and they should be contained in secure settings.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said “We do not intend to raise the age of criminal responsibility. It is not in the interests of justice, of victims or the young people themselves to prevent serious offending being challenged.” In England and Wales, statistics show that there is a danger of criminalising a lot of young people and children for putting them behind bars for committing far less stern crimes.
The idea of the age of criminal responsibility is to show a widespread and practical age for someone to be held responsible for a crime they have committed. Due to there being some sort of moral, intellectual and emotional capacity needed to know the difference between right and wrong. It seems as if it’s asking children at the age of ten too much from them who possibly unable of doing that. Critics believe a child should not be put in a position where they are making decisions that seem far-reaching about their future without clear adult support.
In society to legally consent to sexual intercourse is sixteen; seventeen to drive a car; eighteen to marry and vote in the elections. Which raises the argument of why does society choose to treat children as young as ten as criminals when they commit a crime, and give them serious punishments.
In 2009 a research was published based on children that were aged fourteen and under who were serving Detention and Training Orders (Glover and Hibbert 2009) demonstrated that:
• 44% had experienced abuse within the family, compared with 16% in the general population.
• 16% had a Statement of Special Education Needs compared to 3% of the general population.
• 22% had been living in care, compared 3% of the general population.
• 8% had attempted suicide at some point in their short lives.
These statistics show that most children that get into crime have problems at home and school, they also have social problems that have not been dealt with. To teach these children and give them a better a chance it would be better to raise the age of criminal responsibility.
Detailed longitudinal research involving 4,100 children and young people concluded that the further enmeshed into the formal criminal justice system that children become, the more harm is done and the less likely they are to desist from offending (MaAra and McVie 2007)
The United Nations Committee, have raised concerns about the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales due to both having the lowest age in the EU. They have continuously expressed that the age of criminal responsibility being ten years old is not well-matched with the United Kingdom’s compulsion under international standards of juvenile justice and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The more common minimal age of criminal responsibility is fourteen years old and the UN committee on the Rights of the Child are in favour of increasing the age of twelve being the absolute minimal.
The minimum age as low as ten comes with concern. The first is the amount of youth in custody. In Europe, England and Wales are the highest in putting young people behind bars. England and Wales, imprison young people a hundred times more than Finland, twenty-five more times more than Belgium and four times more than Portugal. This could be a factor that leads to them having more multiple offences as they grow older. Due to a huge number of young people being put into custody, there is a negative perception by society towards young people. An increase of the minimal age will help the society create services that help problematic children improve their behaviour instead of putting arresting and convicting them.
Repeatedly the Government has said that they have no plans on rising the age of criminal responsibility from ten years old (Parliamentary Publications 2010/2011). Justice Minister Crispin Blunt stated the following: “The Government believe that children aged ten are able to distinguish between bad behaviour and serious wrongdoing. It is entirely appropriate to hold them to account for their actions if they commit an offence, and it is important to ensure that communities know that a young person who offends will be dealt with appropriately.” In the statement Justice Minister Crispin Blunt did acknowledge that the Government did know that prosecution is not “always the most appropriate response to youth offending.”
This has been addressed with the Government being in talks of possibly letting police have their intervention services for the youth who are charged with lower level crimes. Thus both punishing and helping the young offender become a better member of society, lowering the chances of them re-offending.
There have been major developments in neuroscience studies. This has indicated that the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales might be too low. The Royal Society Report (Neuroscience and the law, 2011) indicates that at the age of ten parts of the brain connected with decision making and judgement are still developing until the age of twenty. The report made the following conclusion ……’it is clear that at the age of ten the brain is developmentally immature, and continues to undergo important changes linked to regulating one’s own behaviour……’
The National Association for Youth Justice (NAYJ) strongly believe the reasons behind keeping the age of criminal responsibility at ten are unpersuasive. They all also believe that the only reason that the Government refuses to review the calls for change are to give the impression of being strict when it comes to crime committed by youth. The NAYJ stress that the criminalisation of children is a breach of the international standards of children’s rights. Criminalising children as young as ten can be damaging and unnecessary as the NAYJ believe that it does not take into consideration that children at that age are still developing.
Conservative MP Iain Duncan Smith released a report on youth justice.
The report called for the age of criminal responsibility to be raised from ten to twelve years old. The report made a list of recommendations such as; incorporate family and youth court to create a new family approach. Under section 37 of the Children’s Act 1989, it would give the youth court power to give permission to the authorities to investigate whether a child is vulnerable to major harm and under section 47 investigation under the Children’s Act – whether the authorities should interfere if the child’s welfare is at risk. This would then lead to welfare services that provide support to families to be
developed.
By making the age of criminal responsibility to twelve it would be for most grave offences such as; manslaughter, rape, aggravated sexual assault, murder and attempted murder. A further proposal that was included in the report was to focus on investing in early intervention services and improving the environment in custodial facilities.
With the age of criminal responsibility being ten in England and Wales, excluding other jurisdictions, it is known as the lowest in the European Union. Until recently, Scotland’s age of criminal responsibility was eight but was raised to twelve resulting in any child twelve ( section 52 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010) could not be prosecuted in the criminal court. But, the new rule did not take away the right for any child under eight years could be found guilty of an offence making it a minimal age of prosecution and not criminal responsibility. The Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) states that a child between eight and twelve years old can have the mental knowledge to commit a crime but can only be dealt with through the children’s hearing system. Similarly to England and Wales, the age of criminal responsibility in Northern Ireland is ten years old.
But a report by David Ford (September 2011) was distributed recommending that the age should be raised to twelve and after the review period that is should be raised to fourteen. The Northern Ireland Assembly have yet to respond to the report. When comparing to jurisdictions outside Europe, England and Wales stand out. In Hong Kong, Chile and Cuba, their age of criminal responsibility is sixteen. It is twelve years old in, Canada, Mongolia, Azerbaijan and Zambia. Through an international survey, the average age for criminal responsibility is fourteen. The UN Committee on the Rights of Children have now a specific look at what the suitable minimal age of criminal responsibility should be. Various states are pushed to increase their age of criminal responsibility with twelve being the minimum and England and Wales, are criticised at their choice of not complying with their suggestions.
Other countries look for alternatives to prosecution. In France, educational intervention is given priority and proceedings do not take place. In Italy, pre-trial supervision is used and where successful, prosecution does not ensue. Where a young person is involved in criminal activities we should be asking how and why this young person has fallen through the welfare net – not criminalising them. Adults are not paying sufficient attention to the needs of the young or identifying early warning signs.
The government and other responsible authorities need to consider how early criminalisation has an effect on young people’s lives and their future. Instead of the criminal justice system addressing the problem of a problematic youth, it should be dealt with by the welfare system. This then leads to finding a way to help young offenders improve their behaviour to become a better asset to society thus lowering the chances of re-offending.
The age of criminal responsibility should be raised to at least 12 years, the absolute minimum recommended by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. Young people who leave custody do need support on developing their skills which can later be used in society; this is why some sort of rehabilitation plan is needed. Re-offending will be reduced if young offenders are engaged in some sort of resettlement programme before leaving custody.
This debate is not about right and wrong. A six-year-old will know the difference between right and wrong but this does not make them criminally responsible. The debate needs to move away from issues of right and wrong and focus on the question of what is the right thing for us to do in relation to children of this age (All Party Parliamentary Group for Children, 2010).