1/3
At what age should a person be held liable for committing a crime?
In 2014, 376 offences were carried out by those under the age of eight; 4,866 by those under 12 and 44,341 by those under 16. In December 2016, the age of responsibility in Scotland was increased from the age of 8 to 12. A poll of 74 people carried out by the Scottish Government had found that 95% wanted the age to be raised. This now means any person under the age of 12 – who lives in Scotland – cannot be charged or arrested for carrying out a criminal offence and, instead, their parents are held responsible. Other countries with an age of responsibility of 12 or under include the Netherlands, Canada and Australia. Although many believe 12 is the correct age for someone to be prosecuted, there are still those who would prefer it to be lower.
One benefit of a lower age of responsibility is that some children may not carry out a crime if they are aware of the harsher consequences. Once they understand that after they commit an offence, the blame will be placed on them and that they, and not their parents, will be punished, it may deter them. While the age of responsibility was eight, the number of children offending went down each year. In 2006-2007, there were 9,374 proceedings against children under the age of 18 whereas in 2014-2015 there were only 2,246. Also, from 2005-2015 there was only one court case against an 8-11 year old child. In one survey 50% of those asked how harsh they believe the Scottish justice system is on offenders under the age of responsibility said that it was not harsh enough with only 3% saying that it was too harsh. The remaining 47% said that they did not know. This could be because children are given a lot more support during the time following their crime than adults. Some believe that children should not be given any extra help coping with the consequences of their actions; after all, they were the ones who decided to carry out an offence and should suffer the consequences.
Another benefit may be that the harsher experience could stop a child from re-offending later in life by showing them what they will have to go through and therefore putting them off. Although their crime may not have been too serious they will understand that committing an offence isn’t worth it. It could give them a scare and show them that they have to clean up their act if they want a brighter future. A lower age of responsibility gives these children a second chance to become better people who adhere to the law and don’t plague the streets with crime. And why shouldn’t they be given another chance? These 8 year old criminals still clearly have a lot to learn.
A third benefit is that it can be helpful to many children if there is intervention. For example, once a child’s personal life is better investigated, the reasons for them committing crime may be spotted. If there is a problem within a child’s family and it does not seem as though they are safe in their own home environment, the Children’s Panel may direct them to a foster home s that they may lead a better life without re-offending. One survey of 8-22 year olds, carried out by the Scottish Government, showed that young people believed the child offender’s home life should be investigated more thoroughly in order to see if there could be any reason for them carrying out a crime due to their background.
Although there are many benefits to a lower age of responsibility, there are also negatives. For example, some aspects of the justice system can be too harsh on children. The amount of unnecessary hours that a young offender can spend in police custody is shocking Tayside Police revealed that, between 2011 and 2012, they had held 124 children aged 15 or under overnight. At
2/3
the time, half of Scotland’s police forces refused to say how many had been kept in custody overnight and in 2015 Police Scotland said that it would take up too much time and be too expensive to collect new data on the subject. One 14-year-old boy had reportedly spent 36 unnecessary hours in custody and it was found that, throughout the whole of the UK between 2011 and 2012, three children had died in police custody. This makes citizens fear that children’s rights are not being taken fully into account by the police. In addition, many children may start to feel overly stressed, uncomfortable and pressured about having to appear in front of a Children’s Panel. Although a Children’s Panel is supposed to be a calmer, less formal environment than that of a court, young offenders may still feel daunted by it especially if they have never experienced it before.
Another disadvantage of having a lower age of responsibility is that it can have a negative effect on a child’s future. Although some causes of child crime can be prevented from becoming an issue, others may not be so easily spotted. This could lead to the child re-offending, just as 72.3% of under-18s do less than 12 months after being released from custody. One offender, who was 15 at the time he was sent to prison, has spoken of how he learned more about how to commit crimes from fellow inmates than how to get his life back on track.
A third negative effect of having a lower age of responsibility is that a child will still be punished for carrying out a crime even if they were not taught right from wrong well enough. The 95% of those who said they wanted the age to be raised from 8 to 12 in December 2016 shows that the majority of these 74 people thought that it was unfair for a child as young as 8 to be prosecuted for a crime. Most of those who said this also stated that a child’s parents/carers should be held responsible for their child’s actions. Those who care for a child are supposed to teach them right from wrong and, although the Scottish Government says it is trying to prevent younger children from committing crimes through education at primary level, this must not be a job placed solely on teachers. There ar plenty of resources at hand for a parent teaching their child good values if they need help such as parenting books and websites. As the saying goes, “it takes a whole village to raise a child”.
In conclusion, there are many benefits and negatives to having a lower age of responsibility. A lower age may deter children from committing a crime since they will be held responsible. It may also stop re-offending and help them to lead a better life away from the cause of their crime. On the other hand, many children can be made to feel very uncomfortable by the justice system. It can also have a negative effect on a child’s future, making them more involved in crime. Sometimes it is a parent’s fault that a child is in this situation as they may not have taught them right from wrong thoroughly enough. In my opinion the age of responsibility should be 10 as it should be easier to stop them from re-offending because they are younger and more easily re-educated. By this age, I also believe that they will be more likely to be aware of what is right and wrong.