The Politics Thread

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The age of criminal responsibilty is only half the picture though, surely?

I mean, if a 12 year old were found to have formed the intention to kill someone, and went on to be successful in this enterprise, would their treatments be very much different in practice in, say, Germany, whatever the legal technicalities?

Is the age of responsibility actually a 'technicality'? I thought it meant you couldn't be charged with a criminal act. In which case your treatment would be very different. Which doesn't mean you'd be in the sweet shop next day, obviously, but neither would you be in prison.

Where would you be if not a sweet shop or a prison then?

[William the White]

The age of criminal responsibilty is only half the picture though, surely?

I mean, if a 12 year old were found to have formed the intention to kill someone, and went on to be successful in this enterprise, would their treatments be very much different in practice in, say, Germany, whatever the legal technicalities?

Is the age of responsibility actually a 'technicality'? I thought it meant you couldn't be charged with a criminal act. In which case your treatment would be very different. Which doesn't mean you'd be in the sweet shop next day, obviously, but neither would you be in prison.

Where would you be if not a sweet shop or a prison then?

I think you'd probably be in the care of the state, with social services - or whatever the German equivalent - involved deeply. But, really, i don't know if it's possible to imprison a ten year old German child in any way.

But to repeat my question - is the age of responsibility in any sense a technicality? Is it possible in the UK to charge a nine year old with murder? Or any other crime?

[Montreal Wanderer]

The age of criminal responsibilty is only half the picture though, surely?

I mean, if a 12 year old were found to have formed the intention to kill someone, and went on to be successful in this enterprise, would their treatments be very much different in practice in, say, Germany, whatever the legal technicalities?

Is the age of responsibility actually a 'technicality'? I thought it meant you couldn't be charged with a criminal act. In which case your treatment would be very different. Which doesn't mean you'd be in the sweet shop next day, obviously, but neither would you be in prison.

Where would you be if not a sweet shop or a prison then?

I think you'd probably be in the care of the state, with social services - or whatever the German equivalent - involved deeply. But, really, i don't know if it's possible to imprison a ten year old German child in any way.

But to repeat my question - is the age of responsibility in any sense a technicality? Is it possible in the UK to charge a nine year old with murder? Or any other crime?

It seems to me, WtW, based on the defense of infancy children under ten (at the time of the offense) cannot be charged with a criminal offense in Youth Court in the UK.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I think you'd probably be in the care of the state, with social services - or whatever the German equivalent - involved deeply. But, really, i don't know if it's possible to imprison a ten year old German child in any way.

But to repeat my question - is the age of responsibility in any sense a technicality? Is it possible in the UK to charge a nine year old with murder? Or any other crime?

Ok - 'technicality' is the wrong word.

Here's where I am coming from on this...

In the extremely unusual event of a 12 year old choosing to take the life of another human being, there is a range of things the state needs to do, including making sure the 12 year old can't cause harm to anyone else, working out what went so badly wrong with the child to make them do that, and to rehabilitate and 'treat' the child.

These are the most important considerations, whatever the relevant country's position on a minimum age of criminal responsibility is.

I think it is wrong-headed to argue for a fixed link between the minimum age of criminal responsibility and the age of consent.

The latter is a public policy decision in which we agree to draw an artificial and arbitrary line in the sand to do our best to protect children who mature at different rates.

The idea of criminal responsibility is, for me, different. We don't have to pretend that someone who is 15 years 364 days old changes in an important way the next day.

Now, when someone commits a crime below the age of 16, the subject of their age would be highly relevant when working what they actually understood and intended in the situation they were in. It would also be highly relevant when considering what the best way to deal with them is in terms of possible incarceration and treatment (in every sense of that word).

It seems to me that if someone below the age of 16 commits a horrific act that would usually be associated with adults, then the best chance you have of having all courses of action to choose from is if there is a possibility of the child being held criminally responsible.

Sentencing/treatment should always take into account special circumstances (and being young would of course be a big one).

I do not think this a barbaric/unelightened view of the issue.

[Prufrock]

I'm not sure they are all that different. The age of consent is the age below which you cannot consent because you aren't deemed mature enough the understand the nature of the act you would be consenting to, and all its attendant risks and effects.

I don't think that's all that different from an age below which you cannot have any criminal responsibility. Presumably the reasoning for that is because you aren't deemed mature enough to appreciate the consequences of your actions and so form the appropriate mens rea? IMO the best option would be to have an absolute age below which someone cannot consent or be responsible, and then a range above where there was a presumption he or she did not or was not.

I accept the age of consent and criminal responsibility (if you accept that there would be one for all crimes) might not be the same, but I'd be surprised if they were all that different.

I agree about what the priorities should be, but I also think it's important to avoid the stigma of 'convicting' a 10 year-old, and probably more importantly protecting them from having a trial.

The idea that a 10 year-old can ever be deemed to fully understand the consequences of a crime like murder is, imo, nuts.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Really?
I can say with absolute certainty that I understood the enormity of the life/ death interface well before I reached ten years of age.
And some people, even at that tender age are truly evil little bastards.

[thebish]

Really?
I can say with absolute certainty that I understood the enormity of the life/ death interface well before I reached ten years of age.

well done you! clever boy!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Really?
I can say with absolute certainty that I understood the enormity of the life/ death interface well before I reached ten years of age.

well done you! clever boy!

Pru, however, appears to believe that that is nuts.

[bwfcdan94]

So whats going on in America and are the affects of them not sorting this thing out tomorrow as serious as many are saying?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

So whats going on in America and are the affects of them not sorting this thing out tomorrow as serious as many are saying?

You say affects, and I say effects, affects, effects, potato, potartoe, let's call the whole thing off.

[Prufrock]

Really?
I can say with absolute certainty that I understood the enormity of the life/ death interface well before I reached ten years of age.
And some people, even at that tender age are truly evil little bastards.

Did you f*ck. I'm not even sure I understand it now.

And evil isn't a thing.

[thebish]

Really?
I can say with absolute certainty that I understood the enormity of the life/ death interface well before I reached ten years of age.
And some people, even at that tender age are truly evil little bastards.

Did you f*ck. I'm not even sure I understand it now.

And evil isn't a thing.

it is - indeed - interesting to speculate what LLS might mean by a person being "evil" or "truly evil"

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Really?
I can say with absolute certainty that I understood the enormity of the life/ death interface well before I reached ten years of age.
And some people, even at that tender age are truly evil little bastards.

Did you f*ck. I'm not even sure I understand it now.

And evil isn't a thing.

it is - indeed - interesting to speculate what LLS might mean by a person being "evil" or "truly evil"

Why speculate when I can provide a definition?
An evil person, imo, is somebody who takes pleasure in inflicting pain on another being knowing full well the torment being inflicted.
A truly evil person is one that not only does it once ( or indeed, even ocassionally, driven to it by a compulsion knowing they shouldn't) but does it repeatedly, taking pleasure each time knowing the exact torture they've inflicted on another feeling creature.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Really?
I can say with absolute certainty that I understood the enormity of the life/ death interface well before I reached ten years of age.
And some people, even at that tender age are truly evil little bastards.

Did you f*ck. I'm not even sure I understand it now.

And evil isn't a thing.

And you are talking out of your arse. I know this because I lived on a farm until aged 9 and I saw and witnessed death on a regular basis, including a farmworker crushed to death by a bull. But the reason why I know that those under the age of ten can know what murder is, is because I partook of the experience when I was led astray by an older boy called Michael Chapell (you utter cxnt) who killed the litter of kittens my pet cat had unexpectedly produced. I was eight - believe me, I knew what I was doing was evil. I detest myself for it to this day. So you can stick your innocence bollix up your arse - children , can, and do know murder.

[thebish]

An evil person, imo, is somebody who takes pleasure in inflicting pain on another being knowing full well the torment being inflicted.
A truly evil person is one that not only does it once ( or indeed, even ocassionally, driven to it by a compulsion knowing they shouldn't) but does it repeatedly, taking pleasure each time knowing the exact torture they've inflicted on another feeling creature.

I think we have a different view of human nature, then. It might sound like a subtle distinction to make - but I think it is a mistake to define people who inflict pain/torture/suffering as some kind of different category - "evil people" / "monsters" / "animals"...

to do so (I think) runs the risk of complacency... people who do nasty things are just people - just like you and me - they are not a special category - they were not born different - you and me are every bit as capable of doing such nasty things in the right(wrong?) circumstances...

this is why i almost always react when people start throwing about the word "evil"

by your definition - you are an evil person... (you may or may not accept that - but I doubt you are intrinsically any different to anyone else - you're just a person...)

[Lord Kangana]

That Broadmoor programme the other night said that the majority of murders, are, to use a quick and easy phrase, crimes of passion. That the murderer is actually highly (highly, highly) unlikely to be ever involved in another murder, indeed any other crime whatsoever. The system is ill-suited to dealing with them, because public perception is that all killers arte, for another phrase, evil.

And besides, LLS, did you know that the majority of serial killers, mass murderers, etc etc started off with cruelty to animals?

I've got one ey on you at all times, no mistake.

[William the White]

It seems to me that if someone below the age of 16 commits a horrific act that would usually be associated with adults, then the best chance you have of having all courses of action to choose from is if there is a possibility of the child being held criminally responsible.

So - do you think there should be no age of criminal responsibility at all? This seems to mean this.

not ten? not nine? not eight? no age whatsoever in your view that someone should be considered too young to have criminal intent? And 'of all courses of action'? What does that mean? In Iran it means public hanging for girls of 14 that have sex. In Mary Tudor's England it meant a 9 year old being hanged for eating meat on a Friday.

Does it mean that we could sentence an eight year old to life imprisonment? If not, why not?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm not sure they are all that different. The age of consent is the age below which you cannot consent because you aren't deemed mature enough the understand the nature of the act you would be consenting to, and all its attendant risks and effects.

That's not how I see the basis of the minimum age of consent.

We don't actually pretend to be 'deeming people to be not mature enough', do we?

Is it not just the case that it would be impossible to work out when is the right time for every single individual, so we have taken a punt on an imperfect rule because then at least everyone knows where they stand.

For me, looking at criminal behaviour is quite different and we do want the state to go to this effort of looking at things closely on a case-by-case basis (unlike with the sex question).

I don't think that's all that different from an age below which you cannot have any criminal responsibility. Presumably the reasoning for that is because you aren't deemed mature enough to appreciate the consequences of your actions and so form the appropriate mens rea?

With the greatest of respect, you have invented your own definition of mens rea.

At the moment, we do not say that 'fully understanding the consequences' is part of the mens rea of any crime - we simply ask what was intended.

IMO the best option would be to have an absolute age below which someone cannot consent or be responsible, and then a range above where there was a presumption he or she did not or was not.

I accept the age of consent and criminal responsibility (if you accept that there would be one for all crimes) might not be the same, but I'd be surprised if they were all that different.

I agree about what the priorities should be, but I also think it's important to avoid the stigma of 'convicting' a 10 year-old, and probably more importantly protecting them from having a trial.

The idea that a 10 year-old can ever be deemed to fully understand the consequences of a crime like murder is, imo, nuts.

If a 10 year old forms the intention to kill someone, worrying about whether the label given to that action would attract stigma would not be high up my list of priorities when working out what to about such a dreadful and rare situation.

And besides, it is would be perfectly be possible to find criminal responsibility but keep every element of the trial and verdict behind closed doors and secret, if that turns out to be a strong concern.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It seems to me that if someone below the age of 16 commits a horrific act that would usually be associated with adults, then the best chance you have of having all courses of action to choose from is if there is a possibility of the child being held criminally responsible.

So - do you think there should be no age of criminal responsibility at all? This seems to mean this.

not ten? not nine? not eight? no age whatsoever in your view that someone should be considered too young to have criminal intent? And 'of all courses of action'? What does that mean? In Iran it means public hanging for girls of 14 that have sex. In Mary Tudor's England it meant a 9 year old being hanged for eating meat on a Friday.

Does it mean that we could sentence an eight year old to life imprisonment? If not, why not?

Yes - I do not think there should be a minimum of criminal responsibility - correct.

I'm saying that whether or not we sentence an 8-year old to life imprisonment has nothing to do with a bar on finding criminal responsibility below a certain age and everything to do with the fact that we should always try and find a sentence and rehabilitation programme appropriate to the case - and that goes for everyone.

It is almost inconceivable to me that there could be evidence of an 8 year old killing somebody with the intention to do so - the fact that it is so unlikely does not lead me to think I need to make sure by making it technically impossible as a matter of law.

[William the White]

It seems to me that if someone below the age of 16 commits a horrific act that would usually be associated with adults, then the best chance you have of having all courses of action to choose from is if there is a possibility of the child being held criminally responsible.

So - do you think there should be no age of criminal responsibility at all? This seems to mean this.

not ten? not nine? not eight? no age whatsoever in your view that someone should be considered too young to have criminal intent? And 'of all courses of action'? What does that mean? In Iran it means public hanging for girls of 14 that have sex. In Mary Tudor's England it meant a 9 year old being hanged for eating meat on a Friday.

Does it mean that we could sentence an eight year old to life imprisonment? If not, why not?

Yes - I do not think there should be a minimum of criminal responsibility - correct.

I'm saying that whether or not we sentence an 8-year old to life imprisonment has nothing to do with a bar on finding criminal responsibility below a certain age and everything to do with the fact that we should always try and find a sentence and rehabilitation programme appropriate to the case - and that goes for everyone.

Interesting - does that mean you think that all possibilities should be open? That ways of punishing adult recidivists should be open to punishing five year olds? That there should be no legal bar to doing this?