When Children Kill - The Age Of Responsability - How Low Do You Go?

After five boys killed a father playing cricket with his son, by throwing rocks at him.

Legal groups are calling for the age of criminal responsability to be raised. In other European countries they would have been considered too young to face trial.

To me this is some extreme craziness. They killed a man, they left a child fatherless. And they shouldn't be held responsable!!

The full article is here.

I then had a look at WIKI to see how the rest of the world compared.

Country Age
Bangladesh 7
India 7
Mexico 6-12*
Myanmar 7
Nigeria 7
Pakistan 7
South Africa 7
Sudan 7
Tanzania 7
Thailand 7
Indonesia 8
Kenya 8
UK (Scotland) 8
Ethiopia 9
Iran 9***
Philippines 9
Nepal 10
United States 10******
Australia 10
UK (England) 10
UK (Wales) 10
Ukraine 10
Turkey 11
Canada 12
Ireland 12
Korea, Rep. 12
Morocco 12
Uganda 12
Algeria 13
France 13
Poland 13
Uzbekistan 13
Austria 14
China 14
Germany 14
Italy 14
Japan 14
Romania 14
Russia 14
Vietnam 14
Egypt 15
Finland 15
Denmark 15
Norway 15
Sweden 15
Iceland 15
Philippines 15*****
Argentina 16
Spain 16
Brazil 18****
Colombia 18****
Peru 18****
Belgium 18
DR Congo 18

The stars are for various depending points, but my point is the US is between 6 and 10 depending on the state, the UK is generally around the 10 years mark and Canada is 12.

If these Children aren't to be held responsable. Then who is? Will the parents have to kop the punishment. Should we just turn a blind eye to it. Will social services really be able to stop kids acting this way?

At what age does a child know right from wrong?

At what age does a child become responsable for there own actions?

At what point will we stop making excuses for everybody that acts like an idiot?

Catholicism considers "the age of reason" to be 7.
Courts of law will, in extreme cases, allow a child of 7 to testify.
Thomas Jefferson once said (and I paraphrase): if a child has not shown promise by the age of 14, he should be taken out and silently and decently beheaded.
I have personally encountered teens and pre-teens who feel they can get away with murder BECAUSE they're not going to be held accountable.

Years ago I lived in a poor and gang-infested neighborhood in which the parents (!) of these rotten kids were gang members and the kids had even less personal responsibility. The last straw for me was when a gang of prepubescent girls pushed my 10 year old son off his bike and threw him in the dumpster. I confronted them at the park where they were bragging to a gang of prepubescent boys. The instigator of this girl gang defiantly stuck out her chin and said, "I'm a minor. There's nothing you can do about it!" I knocked her on her ass along with about 3 of her heroic friends and when the cops showed up at my house I denied ever having seen the girls. The cops knew what trouble makers they were and left after scolding the girls for lying. When the girls were left standing dumbfounded and disbelieving on my front porch, I defiantly stuck out my chin and said, "you're a minor. who's gonna believe you?!" I never had any more trouble from the gangs in that neighborhood and neither did my kids. I don't care how young they are, they need to be held accountable for their actions.

I have such mixed feelings about this and to be honest I think if everyone dealt with these problems the way whitewave did then our children would not be in this mess in the first place.

Something is going very wrong and I do blame the parents, and I do think the parents should be held accountable. It goes much, much deeper than that though. We need to stop people having children in the first place.

How can a child of ten be responsible for its actions, but how can a child of ten willfully set out to harm another human being? If I had considered these questions ten or even five years ago I would have said that it would require a severe amount of trauma, neglect and abuse to create a child capable of murder. I would have said that all the examples of children commiting 'cold-blooded' murder indicate that neglect and a disfunctional unbringing had led to a number of warning signs that eventually manifested in the child acting out his/her agression on another child.

The two of the most infamous cases Mary Bell (UK) and Willie Bosket (US) clearly demonstrate societies failure to intervene when the signs of abuse were there and to provide treatment when mental instability was first recognised by violent acting out - parents, extended family, neighbours, teachers, social workers and the criminal justice system. a lot of people failed to intervene and help these kids. The "Bulger Boys" can probably be included in this category.

In cases like this, it is essential that we take the case to trial so that the causes can be fully explored and extended accountability can be acknowledged. I do not believe that punishment should be severe, it should acknowledge the severity of the crime but rehabiliation should be the goal of any sentence. The child is sick and should be made better.

In the past decade though we have seen an increase in violent group behaviour and this is far more worrying, indicative of a greater problem and one that should be our immediate concern.

Basically we are faced with a situation where children are behaving like pack animals - which in reality they are. For the leaders of these groups, it is a dog eat dog world. Invariably there is no-one to care for them and instead they band together and care for each other. Creating their own rules and heirarchy. We have all read "Lord of the Flies", Golding was incredibly perceptive and much of this behaviour is directly comparable to waht is becoming a growing problem in more and more urban environments.

As whitewave pointed out, these children consider themselves outside the law - would we solve the problem by bringing them inside? I fear that this would only result in prisons full of babies.

What we as a society have to do is remember that we are the adults and take charge - just like whitewave did. It is popular opinion and action that changes society. We cannot just sit around and expect an already stretched judicary to solve all the problems that we face on a day to day basis. I am not proposing vigilantism (spell??) but I do think that whitewave has the right idea.

Of course it doesn't change that there are 'homes' churning out kids like this in the first place...sterilisation anyone???

Originally posted by ChiKeyMonKey
After five boys killed a father playing cricket with his son, by throwing rocks at him.

They should absolutely be held accountable and sent away for a very long time. It's not like they didn't know what they were doing. And if they didn't think that was wrong I don't think they should be allowed in public anyway.

reply to post by enjoies05


If a minor has sexual intercourse with an adult then it is statutory rape. Surely then it should follow that if they commit murder they at most should be charged with involuntary manslaughter. After all if they are not accountable for their sexual decisions how can they be responsible for life and death over others.

I find this hard to explain, but a child can drink alcohol but only if it has access to it. Obviously this requires an adult to commit a crime (supplying). Similarly with stat rape, their is an adult committing a crime. In both case though the minor is treated in the eyes of the law as a victim.

Though less cut and dried should we not do the same with a minor that commits murder. By that standard shouldn't we treat the child murderer as a victim too?

They got off too lightly, if you ask me.

It would have been different if they had shoplifted something.

You could chalk that up to mischief.

Killing a man is something that even 10 year olds should know is wrong.

Excellent thread!

At what point does a child become accountable for one's own actions?

A good question with many responses.

As a Canadian citizen, I think 12 is a good number. In my opinion, 10 is a little too low, but anything over 12 is a little naive. However, I am certain that there are plenty of children around today, that know right from wrong, well before the age of 12. And on the flip side, there are plenty of others over the age of 12 that do not.

A problem with today's society, is that we are physically maturing at a rapid pace. Puberty and menstruation is occurring much earlier in males and females, so with this physical impression, you would think the child would have matured intellectually as well. But it's not the case. We are seeing a lot of young children being trapped in the body of an adult.

When I look at a crime, I look for culpability. Where is the intent?

If a child can not comprehend his or her actions, regardless of the consequences, how can they be held accountable? Our justice system is not based on knee jerk reactions, whereby we see a need to satisfy those who feel some mythological sense of justice has been enforced if we inflict a strong sentence.

With young children, there are many exceptions. Throwing the book at a kid is not going to solve anything.

Canada isn't perfect, but I think we do a good job on this matter.

A child under the age of 12 is not held accountable for their actions in the eyes of the law. From children 12-18, we have our Youth Criminal Justice Act, which again isn't perfect, but it is an improvement.

I agree with Chissler, age 12 is the best for knowing right from wrong.

The problem here is that many parents are not teaching their kids right from wrong and they just let them do whatever they want and if they should actually attempt to be punished then mommy and daddy do the "oh not my boy/girl, he/she would never do that" and do the whole "he/she volunteered at the soup kitchen" and show the picture of them in their middle school graduation picture and then little Johnny gets let off with a warning or at most he would get probation. Parents need to learn to instill good values in their kids and not be afraid to punish them or admit that they did wrong.

I went to high school with kids who for years had been robbing houses, assaulting and robbing people, setting buildings in fire, etc and were constantly let off simply because of their age or an ineffective criminal justice system or because the cop dident want to do the paperwork. Only in very very serious cases do they get probation, juvenile detention might as well not exist - we only have a center that can hold a mere 30 youth and since we have to have separate sections for males and females and a separate section for mentally ill, the sheriff's office can really only detain 20 minors under 18 - and this is in a county with about 2 million people. Probation is a failure since they cant even supervise half of the people they are assigned to supervise and they all violate it anyways and once again they are not punished. We as a society likes to pretend that if we ignore an issue that it will go away.

[edit on 20-10-2007 by ChrisF231]

As I can see from the answers from other posters it is such a vauge area of law with so many possible interpretations.

There needs to be clear legislation, many cases can be mentioned and quoted from, but with so many outcomes the law can be used to each defendants advantage.

Killers walk free, not that locking them away for 25 years will really help either. Turning savage children in to hardend criminals.

Prevention is always better than cure.

Responsability needs to start with the parents.

Parents need to know and have clearly defined laws to goven them. Morals have pretty much gone out of the window. At the risk of making every country a full nanny state where everything you can and can't do is controlled.

Maybe in Europe this is something that could be addressed by the new constitution, but I doubt it, with some countries ( Spain, Belguim) having the age of criminal responsability at 15 or above.

Now that is criminal.

-Kilgore- I'm not sure murder can be put in the same box as stat rape, as some level of consent has usually been involved otherwise it would just be rape. And under age drinking, agian nobody (usually) forces kids to drink. At some point in life you have to be held accountable for the choices you make.

MonKey

Originally posted by ChiKeyMonKey
-Kilgore- I'm not sure murder can be put in the same box as stat rape, as some level of consent has usually been involved otherwise it would just be rape. And under age drinking, agian nobody (usually) forces kids to drink. At some point in life you have to be held accountable for the choices you make.

I agree the comparison is totally flawed and I by no means advocate that children who murder should not be held accountable, merely that wider society should also bear responsibility. In my mind, with few exceptions, if a child commits a crime of violence he/she has been failed by adult society and should therefore ALSO be treated as a victim. The emphasis should automatically be placed (IMO) on rehabilitation and treatment, not punishment.

Originally posted by ChiKeyMonKey
Killers walk free, not that locking them away for 25 years will really help either. Turning savage children in to hardend criminals.

To me this should be our highest priority - otherwise what is the point, as you say they enter the judicial system and leave it as an even greater problem. In cases like Mary Bell and the "Bulger Boys" we see that with the emphasis on care and rehabilitation there is the hope at least that these children can become contributing members of society.

As romantic and idea as this sounds, evil can be killed with kindness. Not in every case but it is worth a try in most.

All children make mistakes, some infinitely worse than others but i don't think that they should be written off as bad to the core, very few are beyond redemption.

Originally posted by ChiKeyMonKey

Prevention is always better than cure.

Responsability needs to start with the parents.

Yes and yes. Have we come too far though? What does it say about us that our children are killing each other, that they see themselves as above the law?

I personally feel that our entire social structure needs rebuilding and or micro-managed. The judicary is an ineffective tool against social problems.

If it was my decision I would suspend all reproductive rights and hold all parents responsible for their child's actions until the age of 16. I would also introduce a completely peer based judicial system. That might help for starters.

But then I'm a fascist at heart.

This problem has surfaced in this part of the world. Young adults commit crimes and such as car theft and are to young to be charged so they get off scot free. As far as I am concerned providing a person understands the difference between right and wrong they are old enough to be sentenced and to serve jail time.

Originally posted by xpert11
As far as I am concerned providing a person understands the difference between right and wrong they are old enough to be sentenced and to serve jail time.

For the sake of discussion, let's say we have a fourteen year old male. Knows the difference between right and wrong. Yet goes out and steals a car. Does some joy riding, runs a few red lights, and is stopped by the police before anybody is harmed.

Does this child deserve a prison sentence for the theft of the automobile?

For our discussion purposes here, we will say that if the individual were an adult, he would face a prison sentence. So should the child?

Will the prison sentence actually solve anything? Will any positive come of it? Or will it only create more problems than it will solve?

If we were to deal with this in a more constructive and pragmatic way, can we turn the life of this child around? By sending him to prison, are we throwing the life of this individual away? Can we actually believe that he'll leave prison a changed man, and live a positive life?

Prison is not the answer for kids. (With the exception of murder and sexual assault/rape)

Originally posted by chissler
Does this child deserve a prison sentence for the theft of the automobile?

Without a doubt no one should be able to avoid facing the consequences of there actions.

For our discussion purposes here, we will say that if the individual were an adult, he would face a prison sentence. So should the child?

The answer to that question is yes the child should go to jail if that is what the law mandates.

Will the prison sentence actually solve anything? Will any positive come of it? Or will it only create more problems than it will solve?

There is no black and white answer to those questions. The answers differ on an case by case basis. You cant just let someone commit crime after crime and go unpunished.

If we were to deal with this in a more constructive and pragmatic way, can we turn the life of this child around?

The only person that can turn there life around is themselves . This also goes for fourteen year olds who commit crime. If people don't like jail they shouldn't do the crime.

Prison is not the answer for kids. (With the exception of murder and sexual assault/rape)

Well that really is another topic but if some 14 year old stole my car I wouldn't be bothered if they went to jail.

[edit on 21-10-2007 by xpert11]

It's impossible to apply adult standards to children under the age of 16 or so. Their minds simply don't work the same as an adult.

A young child, around age 6, and tell you the difference between right and wrong. But the kid still relies on his parents to determine what he perceives as right, and what he sees as wrong, until he's about 12 and independent thought on the subject of morality begins, when the child learns that he is capable of not agreeing with his parents.

Children also have a hard time grasping cause and effect, especially in the extended sense. A child may hit another child without ever considering that it causes pain. Childish aggression very rarely considers that the person on the receiving end is, in fact, another person. Even once that realization is reached, children are usually completely surprised by harm they cause. Two friends can be horsing around, and one punches the other in the face. The fact that he could break his buddy's nose, split his lips, burst vessels in his friend's eye, or cause any other damage, never crosses his mind. He is caught completely by surprise when his friend develops a bloody nose after the punch. "Oh man, I didn't mean to do that!" - a true statement despite having fully intentionally punched his friend in the nose.

The idea that people can die is also pretty foreign to kids. After all, the kid has never died, everyone he knows is alive. For most kids, the only experiences with death they have are people on TV, or poorly-known relatives. Death never comes close to home. A child never actually thinks that anything he does could result in the death of another human being - even when he's doing something that he knows can kill a person, such as pointing a gun and shooting... the child only realizes that in the abstract, but does not apply it rationally,. He honestly believes the other person will not be hit, or that it will sting and they'll dust themselves off and have a good laugh, or maybe just "pretend" dead. In the very worst case scenario of someone actually being hurt, the child figures that a grown-up will be along shortly to clean everything up.

That mentality lasts up until a few years after the identity of the self sets in, after puberty. At the point the child realizes he is an individual person, he realizes that other people are, as well, and can begin to empathize on a more rational level, and recognize that yes, they can kill someone, and that person will really be dead. However, there's two exceptions. One, teenagers tend to perceive themselves as immortal. Their ideas on life are still formed by personal experience, and unless they have a brush with death either personally or through someone close to them, they will often believe that any action they take is without any serious risk to themselves. Secondly, they will still have difficulty with cause and effect in the long term. The frequent excuses of teenagers, "I didn't mean to" or "I didn't think it would be that bad" are quite often honest expressions of what the kid was thinking

So, to the question itself... I don't believe that setting a hard-and-fast chronological age for responsibility will work. Such a thing rarely takes overall psychology into account, and like most laws, is more concerned with wreaking vengeance than actually meting justice. Additionally, each child matures at different rates. I think the best solution is case-by-case evaluation of child crimes. Sometimes they honestly and truly have no clue what they're doing, and saying "Well you're eight, tough cookies, lock him up" accomplishes nothing even remotely like justice.

reply to post by The Walking Fox


Excellent post and some good points well made.

But, if you deal with children on a case by case basis you start walking in a field full of legal landmines. Right now I can see greedy lawers rubbing their dirty little mitts together.

Laws need to be written in the most crystal of clearness.

Before you know it you'll have. "Miss X who accidentally ran over a bus full of nunns, was set free today on the ground that she hasn't started her periods and is therefore not developed enough to take responsability". Miss X stated "I didn't know it would be so bad!"

A little extreme, maybe so, but it's a lawers job to find the loop holes.

I'm not going to try and write it but couldn't there be a

Parental Responsability Bill/Law.

If as you say even teenagers still aren't so linked with the concept of self, maybe this should cover parents until the child reaches adulthood - which again is difficult being that in some countries children can drive, effectively giving them charge of an offensive weapon if so desired.

Heck, maybe us parents could have some form of "Child Insurance" to foot the bill if your kid goes nuts!!

While I completely agree that every child is different. Rules and Laws need to be the same for everybody.

MonKey

The problem with the idea of parental responsibility laws is that in becoming independent from their parents, the majority of teenagers tend to overdo things - the cliche "rebel teenager." So odds are that one of these knuckleheads will take advantage of the law to harm their parents... while STILL not realizing how serious the repercussions are.

Putting the law in place for prepubescent kids, though, that'd be perfectly acceptable, to me.

Handling the kids who are in the "grey area" is where it gets really problematic. A combination of hormones, psychological wiring, and general environment can override a teenager's sense of reason fairly easily. We've all looked back and gone "...what the hell made me do THAT?!"

Holding them responsible for their actions, but not to as harsh a degree as an adult (Which, generally, is anyone over 17, give or take) is really the most workable choice. All these "tough on crime" jagoffs who want to try ten year olds as adults, though... we need to get rid of those. They should not be in hte legal system, period, any more than a pedophile should be allowed to run a daycare.

The Walking Fox I have to disagree with you kids don't go from having the understanding of a five year straight to the maturity of an adult that's why a 15 year old might not be interested in members of the opposite sex but that they know that they shouldn't commit crimes . As for cause and effect aspects of this seem to know quiet early on hence the existence of school yard bully's who know that they aren't being nice. Also if a child has to be told by there parents what is right and wrong then they clearly don't understand what is right and wrong by themselves.

Now to your point about understanding death. Most kids are going to have an understanding of death before they reach the age of nine or ten. For me it came when I was about five years old the beloved family pet got run over. If a five year old is committing crimes then the kid needs to taken away from his/her parents period. I have never heard anyone over the age of ten say that "I didn't mean to cause harm " in the context of what we are discussing .

Aside from all of the above if you fail to drive the consequences home when they are young you are in for trouble later on. In that regard the law is a bit like parenting. Plus it just isnt feasible to deal with criminals on a case by case basis.

yes, good post. The presumption of innocence with children = doli incapax - capable of doing no wrong is problematic:

At common law the age of criminal responsibility is 7 years of age. The age of criminal responsibility has been raised by statute to 10 in all Australian jurisdictions,[9] except the Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania where the threshold is 8 and 7 respectively

www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au...

I was only discussing this with one of my friends the other day. She is a High School Legal Studies Teacher. I had said to her that the introduction of legal studies should be introduced in primary school (to coincide with the age of criminal responsibilty to respective jurisdiction)

The fact is if a child commits an offense = actus rea. You need to establish the mens rea of the offence. If a child runs away or seems to have knowledge that what they have done is wrong, at common law and under statue they can be prosecuted.

Shocking!!

A child may run away because they are scared. The actions do not equate absolutely that they have an understanding to know what is wrong or right. It is obscene. The presumption of doli incapax is pretty much useless especially if media whip up some frenzy relating to the offense.

At least Australia doesnt have minors sitting waiting on death row like in Florida!!!

I shudder at the thought.

reply to post by The Walking Fox


Parental responsibility doesn't mean much at all in a criminal area. Civil area, yes. The parents can be sued. But that doesn't assist a child in a criminal case. It may reduce criminal responsibility but that is all, really.

Parental resp = civil acclaim but not under criminal law.

[Edit] totally replied to the wrong thread

[edit on 22-10-2007 by The Walking Fox]