Age of criminal responsibility?

[lurok]

Apologies again if this has been exhausted here, but prompted by phone-in heard in background where discussing possibly raising age from 10 to 12 in Northern Ireland. Does anyone else find 10 too young? It's apparently predicated on having moral sense of right and wrong by that age. But different countries have different age limits, so be interested to hear how it's set elsewhere.

 

[Roger Wilco]

I believe it's 14 in Austria, but it's a little more complicated than that; it doesn't mean there can't be any consequences under any circumstances for acts committed at an earlier age (like maybe parents having to pay for damages).

10 seems awfully young though.

 

[SmoothieX]

To me it depends on the nature of the crime. If it's something minor like vandalism or petty theft, that's immaturity and poor judgment. If the kid mows down his parents, then yes.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

The English Common Law rule was the Rule of 7. Under the age of seven, you were not responsible for your acts. Between 7 and 14, you could be established to be responsible, but it was not automatic. If you were older than 14, you were presumed responsible, but the juvenile could establish that they did not understand the wrongfulness of their acts.

I think most Common Law countries still follow the basic format, but the exact year varies. In England, I believe it is 10. In the United States, it depends on the state. However, for federal crimes, it is 11. Since the advent of juvenile courts, which are quasi-criminal in nature (the moral culpability for being found delinquent isn't supposed to be the same as a conviction and much greater effort is placed on rehabilitation), there's room for degrees of responsibility without it being black and white.

For more info on the Rule of Seven and child cuplability, see the Infancy Defense

 

[Robert Maxwell]

To me it depends on the nature of the crime. If it's something minor like vandalism or petty theft, that's immaturity and poor judgment. If the kid mows down his parents, then yes.

What does the nature of the crime have to do with the mental culpability of the perpetrator? If someone is too young to fully grasp the causes and effects of their actions, then they are too young, and should not legally be held responsible. There isn't some magic line where a crime is "bad enough" that society won't tolerate anything less than the harshest punishment possible. At that point, it ceases to be a justice system and just becomes a tool of institutionalized revenge.

 

[SmoothieX]

Youthful indiscretion versus brazen criminal intent or indifference.

If I'm 12 and TP'ing a tree in someone's yard yes technically that is a crime, but it's not causing any major harm. A slap on the wrist and a few weekends of community service ought to scare you straight.

You start getting into murder, assault with a weapon, molestation or other wanton acts of disregard for human life, then you are a danger to society and should be locked away somewhere.

Isn't the criminal justice system already a form of institutionalized revenge? You commit a little crime, you get a little punishment in the form of a fine or probation. You commit a big crime, you're doing 25-life in a federal pound me in the ass prison.

I get what you are saying. What I am trying to get across (poorly I might add) is a line between something dumb you did because you weren't mature enough to think it through, as opposed to something premeditated.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Youthful indiscretion versus brazen criminal intent or indifference.

If I'm 12 and TP'ing a tree in someone's yard yes technically that is a crime, but it's not causing any major harm. A slap on the wrist and a few weekends of community service ought to scare you straight.

You start getting into murder, assault with a weapon, molestation or other wanton acts of disregard for human life, then you are a danger to society and should be locked away somewhere.

Isn't the criminal justice system already a form of institutionalized revenge? You commit a little crime, you get a little punishment in the form of a fine or probation. You commit a big crime, you're doing 25-life in a federal pound me in the ass prison.

I get what you are saying. What I am trying to get across (poorly I might add) is a line between something dumb you did because you weren't mature enough to think it through, as opposed to something premeditated.

Someone just beginning puberty, generally speaking, does not and cannot understand the consequences of their actions, nor be in full control of them. I'm not saying you just put someone like that back on the street--clearly, something is deeply wrong with them that needs to be treated--but locking them up and throwing away the key is the wrong answer, too. Someone who commits such a heinous crime at such a young age has been deeply failed by the systems that are supposed to help and protect them. At the very least, that society is accountable to try to help them become mentally stable, productive members of that society. That attempt may fail, but not trying at all is not acceptable.

 

[MacLeod]

^Isn't it more a case rather than knowing the consequences of an act, knowing right from wrong?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

^Isn't it more a case rather than knowing the consequences of an act, knowing right from wrong?

It is some of both. Moral culpability certainly stems from knowing right from wrong, though.

 

[Relayer1]

I think 10 is rather too old. If you don't know right from wrong by 7 you probably never will.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I think 10 is rather too old. If you don't know right from wrong by 7 you probably never will.

This is what I meant by understanding consequences. Do most 7-year-olds understand death, beyond the fact that "someone who used to be here isn't here anymore"? Do most 10-year-olds?

We aren't talking about whether a kid knows it's wrong to steal candy from the grocery store, we're talking about much more serious and profound offenses.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

It's about understanding and appreciating the consequences of your actions. So it's not just about not knowing you can't do something, but why. Little kids know it's wrong to pull the dog's tail and shoot someone, but they don't appreciate the difference in value between the two and the ability to understand this value makes all the difference.

 

[rhubarbodendron]

exactly.


In Germany, it's 14 years. Kids younger than that can't be prosecuted but the family will be supervised by the authorities and get qualified help and educational advice if needed.


Kids between 14 and 18 get very lenient sentences. No prison. There is something called "youth arrest" for really extreme cases, but that's usually after the umptiest offense and it's hardly ever used. (While spanking is in theory forbidden, it's in praxis used quite a lot and often proves far more effective than anything the court orders.) The most common punishment is a certain period of social work, for example with elderly people, small children or disabled people. It actually works quite well as it's often a new experience for the teenagers that someone needs them and appreciates their work. Often, they get positive feedback for the first time in their lives. I once had 5 such kids helping me install nest boxes for white-throated dippers - a kind of blackbird that hunts for insects under water and breeds in mid-winter. All of these 5 kids loved the work and are now active in an environmental society, 3 of them became carpenters, 1 is a mechanic and #5 has just successfully finished a job training in my own profession =)


Between 18 and 21 people can be treated by juvenile law, depending on their maturity (or lack of, rather).

 

[Holdfast]

TIn England, I believe it is 10.

I also believe that this is the correct figure over here.

Personally, I think it shouldn't be an absolute cut-off, but rather be dependent on an as-full-as-possible assessment of mens rea. An assumption of incapacity can be made for children one or another, dependant on age, but it should still be tested out in cases where there is doubt. In practice, that would probably mean routine assessments of likely mens rea for all kids between about 7 and 16, I suspect. This, of course, has cost & time implications which may be be too great for the State to bear.