In Brazil at a seminar sponsored by the special committee of the Chamber of Deputies, the consensus was that the hardening of punishments applied to juvenile offenders would not be the solution to reduce the practice of criminal acts of the same.
Before starting a discussion,
in my country Germany young people are not responsible if they are younger than 14 years, between 14 and 17 years a special law for young delinquents must be used. If the are older, the judge can decide to take the offender as still juvenile or adult.
The idea to free the
Dear Hanno and Shafig
Many thanks for your valuable opinions .
In Brazil juvenile offender (under 18) is sent to an institution called House Foundation , where remains a certain period of time to resocializarem and to become a citizen as well The residence time in this House Foundation is variable , but most do not stay for more than 4 months for various reasons : super prison population , re-education programs slums, inadequate logistics, leaks and lack of skilled staff and making this House Foundation is a school graduate in crime
In Brazil , in 2011 the proportion of assaulting minors of this group represented 29.2 % of total prisoners , reaching 33 % in 2013 .
In Brazil there are no effective policies to accommodate this demand and , therefore, they are welcomed by the crime . . These offenders are brutalized because they are loose in life. It is necessary to review the role of the state , because these teens are totally without bounds , trivializing violence .
In the UK a child is considered Doli Incapax up to the age of ten. Between 10 and 14 they can only be held criminally culpable if it can be demonstrated that they were aware of the inherent wrong in what they were doing.
This is a really difficult question. Children much younger than ten know that an act or kind of act is wrong, even criminal and they act this out in their play. What is rather more difficult to demonstrate is their understanding of the gravity of the offences and the impact they have on individuals and society. We must protect children from crime and teach them the qualitative value of crime in terms of impact before we judge them.
Dear Barry
Its a difficult problem and the solution of each case should be based in the good sense.
Thank you very much for your opinion
Regards
In the US over the years a number of states lowered the age of criminal responsibility. I think (but am not sure) most studies concluded that treating younger people as adults did not reduce crime and that juveniles treated as adults had higher rates of recidivism. On the other hand, I think for many people the goal of reducing the age of criminal responsibility was to make sure people are punished severely, regardless of whether it actually reduced crime. Looking at some of the studies might be helpful for you.
DAE
blog: http://uslaw.blogbaker.com
Ah, sorry, that is just a link to my blog (which I welcome you to visit and comment on)
Here is a link to one study that is older but frequently cited:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3053628?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21104134209373
The federal government (Department of Justice) also has a study which is frequently cited:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/220595.pdf
The Majority age according to Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 is considered to be 18 years. The criminal laws in our country (Indian Penal Code, 1860, Crimnal Procedure Code, 1873, The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, etc) treat all the offender below 18 years of age as juveniles and provide for a special approach towards the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency and also provides a framework for the protection, treatment and rehabilitation of children in the purview of the juvenile justice system.
In India, juveniles up to the age of 18 cannot be tried as adults in cases of serious crimes such as murder or rape. For those who commit such intolerant acts, the most severe punishment they will ever receive is a maximum sentence of three years in a reform facility. The lax nature of this law arguably invites young offenders to get themselves involved in those crimes. Therefore, these laws need to be more strict and serious enough so as to create a deterrent effect on these opportunist juveniles.
On 23rd December, 2012, the recent tragedy in India that resulted in the death of a student who was gang-raped in a moving bus in India's capital, Delhi illustrates the incongruity of letting a juvenile off the hook when it comes to intolerable crimes. Before she died, the young 23 year-old allegedly told her mother that the youngest of the six accused rapists had participated in the most brutal aspects of the rape.
Therefore, there is a need for a stricter punishment for juveniles found guilty of serious crimes. Many social activists are demanding for a change in Indian laws in this regard so as to create enough deterrence among the younger generation especially the juveniles.
In my opinion, the age for the criminal responsibility must be reduced to 15 years as we witness today that the younger generation in this modern world is maturing very fast the reason is best known by the scientist. We also see the change in the behaviour of the young that warrants some care and nourishment by the parents, society and the Government.
Therefore, it our responsibility to see that our younger generation is brought up in a suitable environment so that they should not be the reason of extinction of human being on this earth.
Thanks a lot for the question! Good day!
We have in the UK the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 which prevents the identification of juveniles (under 18) in the press. This is done on the grounds that allowing them to be anonymous gives them the opportunity for rehabilitation although they may still be 'punished' by the courts if they are over 10 years old.
The press in the UK frequently challenge the anonymity orders on the grounds of public interest and if they can satisfy the court that the young offender is not likely to rehabilitate then the anonymity is lifted.
Dear Vivek and Barry
The offender under 18 years still is an offender . Keep them away from society by providing educational programs and rehabilitation is an obligation of the state.
Thank you very much
Dear Nelson,
I think we should analyze all the norms relate to the validity of the consent of children (the age of marriage, to vote in elections, to decide about a medical treatment or to have sex -including pictures or films related to the sexual activity-, of criminal responsibility, etc.). If after a serious analysis, including the work of a multidisciplinary group of experts, we concluded that a person under 18 years understands better the meaning of certain acts than others, we can make differences in the age to consent.
In Chile a person under 18 years may exceptionally marriage, can't vote in elections, can decide about a medical treatment with several limitations, can have sex with several limitations, can't capture images from its own sexual activity, and after the age of 14 years can have criminal responsibility, but in a different system than adults (with lower criminal punishment, for example).
best regards
Dear Laura
I appreciate your valuable comments particularly in relation to this expression: after the age of 14 years can have criminal responsibility, but in a different system than adults (with lower criminal punishment)
Thank you very much
Regards
In Virgina, a child 14 years of age may be tried as an adult. The requirements are contained in the statute with a link below. Alternatively, they can be adjudicated in Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court and may be transferred to the Dept. of Juvenile Justice up to age 21.
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+16.1-269.1
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+16.1-269.1
I think I do not subscribe to the view that the age of criminal responsibility should be reduced. Because reducing the age means making juveniles more vulnerable to street bureaucrats.
In Pakistan the position is as under:
1. A child under seven of age bear no criminal responsibility
2. A child under 12 and above seven years of age may incur criminal responsibility, only if he could form a 'dolus' or in other words if can understand the consequences of his act.
3. Any person above 12 years of age is liable for criminal responsibility.
Dear Asmatullah
Very interesting your answer for which I tank you. I have some questions:
The people over 12 years old are tried and sentenced ? The sentence depends on the type of crime committed ? There is a special prision for them ?
Of course also in polish criminal law it can only be a natural person who has reached a certain stage of development of mental and moral (the age of accountability) and is in such a mental state in which it is capable of understanding the undertaken action and directing their actions (sanity). The age limits determined by the law of criminal responsibility Polish as the completion of 17 years before the commission of an offense (Article 10 § 1 of the Penal Code).
This limit is, however, reduced in the case referred to in Article commit . 10 § 2 Pecal Code crimes with a high degree of social harm. The Act provides for criminal liability of a minor who has completed 15 years before committing such an offense if any previous educational measures have not yielded the expected results.
The second category of age of criminal responsibility is a juvenile . A young person is the perpetrator , who at the time of the offense has not completed 21 years (but graduated 17 years) and at the time of the judgment in the first instance - 24 years . They are subject to full criminal responsibility.
Criminal liability companies shall not be held criminally liable under the terms of the code of criminal legal person or other collective creation.
Hello
in Israel the criminal responsibility began at age 12, but prison is only from age 14.
Only 5% of all juveniles who were punished, were sent to jail.
In Israel there is a special criminal law for juveniles, who offers 8 rehabilitation or treatment ways, without conviction, even if the youth found guilty
In addition, the U.S. tried to use a severe punishment on youth but the results were very poor.
There is reason to think that children needs treatment. In Israel there is a programe called "chances", which has great results in habilitation
Dear Arnon
Thank you very much
I also believe children needs a special treatment.
Best regards
It has been the policy of the United States that each individual state may set what is known as the "age of reason" and therefore when a person may be held liable for any crime they may commit. There is no guideline at our federal level that is set in stone when it comes to juvenile offenders. With the crime rate soaring in the late 80's and early 90's, conservative politicians appealed to the public and to the courts for harsher punishments for juvenile offenders. This is particularly true for drug offenses because drug dealers often used children as "runners" knowing if they got caught the punishment they would face would usually be light. Another reason the US increased punishments and lowered the age threshold in many states is the rise in violent crimes such as murder, rape, and assault with deadly weapons committed by children under the age of 18. I have read recently that Piaget has deduced that many people do not fully develop cognitive maturity until their mid twenties and into their early thirties. This lack of maturity leads young adults to make extremely poor decisions and they lack self control, a recipe for social deviance often in the form of criminal behavior. I am including a link for you to access an excellent piece from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service that may shed some more light on your question. www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/nationalreport99/chapter4.pdf
Best Regards,
George White
In the U.S., several authors point out that the existence of 2.5 million people imprisoned is major cause of: great social disparities, feedback cycle of poverty for countless children of these prisoners that are cared for by only one person in the family - getting on the streets, with insufficient resources for education, and getting the worst possible examples. In other words, the potential of these children whose parents are in prison is the worst. However, China has a much higher population than the U.S. and is not bland in the punishments, however, has fewer prisoners than the USA. Now, something is definitely wrong with "punitive" U.S. vision. I do not want to defend any kind of impunity; however, jail does not represent any possibility of correction or probation. In Brazil, this theme of a judge wisely refrain from applying the maximum prison term in a case is well portrayed in the movie "My Name Is not Johnny."
Dear Roberto and George
i enjoyed your feedback for which i thank
Regards
In Roumania, the Criminal Code provides noncustodial educational measures and custodial educational measures. The minor who at the time of the offense was aged between 14 and 18 years will be subjected to non-custodial educational measures. Custodial educational measures can be taken to the juvenile offender in the following cases: a) if he has committed a crime for which he was subjected to an educational measure that was executed or the execution of which began before commiting the offense for which he was tried; b) if the punishment provided for the offense is imprisonment for seven years or more or life imprisonment.
Non-custodial educational measures of the Criminal Code: civic internship training, supervision, weekend commitment, daily assistance. Custodial educational measures: internment in an educational center, internment in a detention center.
Vasilica Negrut
Hello
The Israeli criminal code determinse that minors age 12-18 will be judged as any other criminal. although minors will be send to jail only from age 14.
In addition there are special laws for minors in which there are 8 possibilities of care without punishment.
In the states they tried to punish minors as adults, but the results were disaster.
That's a difficult question. Who a child becomes forms early in their lives. It's very true that their brains are not fully mature as teenagers and so holding them accountable as adults seems harsh. Alternatively, there are often extenuating circumstances that cause brain development to be delayed. Drugs, alcohol, and trauma tend to stop the maturation process and will do so indefinitely if the circumstances are not addressed. If the child remains in the same types of environments, it is very likely that they will be repeat offenders. Many times, the damage has been so severe that even after being removed from the negative environment, the neuro-pathways are fixed. Studies comparing alcohol users brains vs drug users brains on MRI's have shown permanent changes in drug users brains- the cells don't regenerate. Each case needs to be evaluated based on the known background of the child and circumstances of the crime. If their brainwave pattern hasn't been compromised, there is potential to help these children get the help they need- either before they become repeat offenders or during incarceration.
Dear Arnon and Tammy
Thank you very much for your opinions.
Best regards
Hi Nelson,
Yours is an interesting question with deep implications. Arguably, ignorance and mental immaturity could be used and have been used to cover for child criminal accountability. The question is: How low can the age go? And what benefits would it bring?
With modern information technology, babes (so to say) have access to violent films, pornographic materials and they observe humans disfigure and kill one another in the name of entertainment using video games, all without registering any pain. In this way, children are desensitized to the point that they do not seem to see anything wrong in the practice. They grow into adults with these qualities and mindset. Thus, it all boils down to what is fed to the minds of children - a matter of moral upbringing. To address your question, consider alcohol, cigarettes, etc. Does increased prices and tax reduce abuse? Of course not. Rather, it fuels crime in different ways because the youngsters resort to stealing to satisfy their desires. Reducing the age of criminal responsibility, or hardening the penalties even to the point of capital punishment are only superficial measures that do not address the problem. Our young ones need moral education to preclude committing the crime in the first place. Moral education? That could be a taboo to majority in this so-called FREE world. Yes, free to do anything regardless of the harm one may be causing to self and to others.
Dear Akpan
The familiar example is very important for the future of a child. The laws should be stronger stipulating times for the transmission of certain programs that address violence, use of alcohol and tobacco. It is important to create mechanisms for the prevention prevail over punishment.
Thank you very much.Regards
Hi Nelson,
Personally, I am also of the opinion that the age of criminal responsibility should be reduced. In Sri Lanka, according to Section 75 of the Penal Code a child who is below the age of 8 is exculpated from all offences while Section 76 allows children between 8 - 12 to be exculpated if such child has not attained sufficient maturity. Although seems to be a sufficiently fair law, there are other provisions such as Section 113 of the Evidence Ordinance which creates an irrebuttable presumption that a boy below the age of 12 cannot commit rape. However, such instances have taken place in Sri Lanka and there has been no recourse. Further, the Sri Lankan law does not provide a sufficient remedy to minors whose rights have been affected by juvenile offenders. While I am not supporting the idea that deterrence alone would help prevent crime, I believe that the age of criminal liability should be reduced for the reasons stated hereinabove.
Dear Danushka
Thank you very much for your very important opinion
Best regards
Yes..Law is nothing but the science of society we dwelling in,which goes on advancing day by day.When in 2002 was in Post Graduation,till that time I hadnot used mobile phone & today my son of class IVth is so frequent with Sony PSP and its the cosmopolitan status world wide.
In India
1) As per Indian Penal Code,1861
Section 82. Act of a child under seven years of age
Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.
Section 83. Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding
Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion &
2) As per Indian Contract Act,1872
Sec 10 any agreement by a person,below the age of majority, is void.
Dear Nelson,
In Sweden the Penal Code will deal with anyone from the age of 15 who comitted a crim, however they will be considered as children until age of 18 and the penalty will be lower and it is very rare any would up in the normal prison system. The Social Welfare will be involved too.
Before age of 15 it is the Social Welfare Office that will interfer and give family and support.
The Police will interview also those between 12 and 15 to sort out the crime. The Police can be asked by the Social Wellfar Officer to carry out first interviews also with younger children like between 9 and 12. Only gross crime with younger children who are offenders.
The minimum age of criminal responsibility in Australia is 10 years. Between 10 and 14, a rebuttable presumption of incapacity applies: see http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/181-200/tandi181.html
Dear Gregor
Thank you very much for the answer and the site
Best regards
I am not in support of reducing the age of criminal responsibility to maintain order and sanity in the society.
This is obviously such an intricate, and tangled web; with so many variables to consider, I feel I would be remised to say yes or no. This is definitely one of those instances/topics where grey areas count drastically.
I will suggest parents should be charged with crime upto some extent and to be disciplined (not by punishing rather by educating)
In India a child below 18 years is tried under THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT. But recently after the Nirbhaya Rape Case of December, 2013 lots of debate regrading reduction of age of the minor in case of heinous act is going on.
My suggestion in this case is that minor should be tried like a adult in cases of heinous act but not in other cases depending on the situation and environment of the upbringing of the child.
Hello,
I’m not favor of reducing it.
Growing human may have a late mental growth.
Age over 14th year is age of criminal responsibilty in South Korea.
In the USA, see the case of Roper v. Simmons, a Supreme Court case regarding the death penalty, which cannot be applied to anyone who was not yet 18 years old at the time of the crime. See this link to read that case:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/543/551/
However, many juveniles are tried for crimes as adults even though they are young teenagers. The euphemistic name for this is certification as an adult. In Oklahoma, here is a summary of that (in my view) ind=sane provision: A child of at least 13 charged with first degree murder "shall be held accountable for his acts as if he were an adult." A case against such a child is commenced with the filing of criminal charges. (Note, however, that except where a child has previously been certified for adult trial or adult sentencing, the court may order the child certified as a juvenile or youthful offender; see Reverse Waiver.) The human does not stop evolving until around age 24-25. The last area to mature is the neocortical areas responsible for judgment and impulse control. What is criminal is to try juveniles as adults at all, and also to assess the death penalty for anyone who is not at least 21 and preferably not against anyone 24 or older. I have spent a lot of my legal career in death penalty defense and have litigated unsuccessfully to have a young client declared ineligible for death - seeking a Roper exclusion or Roper extension as well as a constitutional ruling that the age should be raised across the board. My country is among the most barbaric on earth in this regard.
I concur with Jim. Moreover, a recent line of decisions in the U.S. has established the principle that juveniles are different from adults developmentally (Graham v. Florida, Miller v. Alabama, Montgomery v. Louisiana). However, the U.S. Supreme Court did not find the use of life sentences in these cases unconstitutional. the court ruled instead that life sentences were only appropriate in a very small number of cases. The decision authorities are asked to make the individualized judgment of whether the youth's crime reflected the youth's transient immaturity and the youth's potential for rehabilitation. The court concluded that life sentences should be limited to juveniles adjudged irreparably corrupt. s But, legal scholars here questioned whether this criterion can be validly determined.
I believe we need to move in the other direction towards establishing diminished forms of moral culpability that extend beyond age 18. However, transfers to adult court remain automatic for some crimes in some states in the U.S. and as Jim pointed out we are an outlier in the world community in this regards.
Yes ' because the child's mentality has become more mature with IT tools.
In Kuwait, the criminal age is 18 years.
In Argentina, you are criminal responsible, for most of the public criminal offences, from age 16. But.......even now and then politicians think that the way to fight crime is to lower the age of responsability. You can make kinders criminal responsible....but if you don't address the causes of criminal behaviour, which are never full criminal grounded, crime will stay the same. In a country like mine, where law is a "mere recommendation"........crime should be seen as a social multifactorial behavior. Criminal law is no complete answer to crime, it usually comes late and the conflict is worsen instead of contained.
IT may sharpen the wits but it does nothing to mature the youth - in fact it often delays or stunts and halts that maturation, in my experience. IT isolates payhologically any youth who already tends toward isolation, and IT buttresses alienation snd susceptibility to extremism. I agree with the post that criminlalization is nommore an answer yo juvenile crime than it is to drug possession or addiction-- Locking them up only fuels the problem and criminalization feeds the cartels. Locking juveniles sends them to the graduate school of crime.
Even more, the international conventions on human rights, specially the Convention on Child's Right forbids State parties to condenm a child to life imprisonment and states the need to develop a special process for a child in conflict with criminal law, with an approach on restaurative justice and legal measures less restrictive of his freedom. Certainly, nobody can learn a social valuable behaviour at an environment where the rule is to violate the rule. Children are under mental development, trying to gain maturity and "fit in the world". Most of the children under conflict with criminal law in my country come from the worse social environment you can find, usually where adiction, law defyng behavior, poverty, abuse and neglect are well known determinants of anomic behaviour.
Estimada Maria
Una vez más le agradezco presentar con claridad y precisión su opinión. Gracias
Saludos
Maturity occurs when youth achieve the capacity for independent decision making and economic independence. Their exposure to IT allows for increased social pressure and other normative forms of influence, including false assumptions about the behaviors of others. These measures of immaturity are further aggravated by other forms of developmental immaturity identified by Maria.
It is interesting that we are now considering a new stage of development known as emerging adulthood because of these developmental deficits in youth after 18. Most youth from affluent families are not making adult like decisions and are at increased dependence on their parents. They also remain highly susceptible to the influences of media and their peers. Moreover, social media increases what social scientists refer to as "pluralistic ignorance". That is, they may privately reject a peer group norm, but abide by it publicly because other members of their peer group are in favor of it. This is known to increase their use of drugs and engage in other forms of deviant behavior.
The upshot is current societies deferentially apply principles of maturity to youth. They are considered equal under the law at 18 for the poor. Yet businesses will not rent a car in the U.S. to a 18 year old because youth lack the ability to effectively regulate their impulses and understand the full consequences of their behavior. Youth may be aware of specific norms, but they have developed attitudes and norms through the media that are against the norms of society. So, in my opinion, IT does not provide a good measure of positive measures of maturity with implications for modifying current policies. They have not developed the type of critical judgment for evaluating various types of "mature content on the web" and in the social media. In my opinion, they are corrupted rather than informed by exposure to some IT innovations.
Most juveniles are not criminals. Those that violate the law are usually engaged in property or status offenses. However, in the United States, the problem has been aggravated by the membership of youth in criminal gangs. The gangs are often run by adults and are long established (Folk Nation, 1959, People Nation, 1959, Crips 1968, Bloods, 1968, etc.). Their older siblings, parents and even grandparents may have been or still are gang members. The involvement in extreme violent crimes by these juvenile gang members has caused many state legislatures to lower the age that a juvenile can be referred to the adult courts.
Pardon all my typos in my last post. I should not be allowed to post in the middle of the night. :)
Professor Etter,. it is true that gangs get young and malleable recruits early on, not different in concept than child fighters in wars across the world. The underlying problem is of course that many societies including USA society have defaulted child-raiding complexities with simplistic responses, especially as to those with low or no support structures socially. with the result that kids resort to simplistic solutions like crime. The class divide is like the universe- further expanding due to the Big Bang of social inequity. In any event, like bombing, criminalization-hardening only increases resistance in the form of further exacerbated criminal behavior. More Tai Chi, less cage-fighting (pun intended).
التفكك الاسري والحروب التي انتجت اسر مفككه هو امن هم اسباب انتشار الجريمة فالمجتمعات التقليدية كالعراق لم يكن فيها الجريمة بهذا المستوى المرتفع ،كما ان المخدرات اصبحت من اخطر المشكلات التي تهدد امن المجتمع العراقي اكثر من الجماعات الارهابية المسلحة ،علينا ان نبني اسر متماسكة ،لكي نتخلص من الجريمة المنظمة بكل صورها واشكالها
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Sociology