Young People and Minimum Age of Criminal Justice

Young People and Minimum Age of Criminal Justice

Background

ACR, popularly known as the age of criminal responsibility, is a severe issue in the UK. In North Wales and England, ACR is set to 10 years, whereas Scotland ACR is set to 8 years. These assumptions have been questioned considering the current functioning of the brain and behavioral development in a minor. The mentioned ACR of 10 years is known to cause a dispute in the UK’s children’s’ civil rights and international treaties on children’s rights (McAra & McVie, 2010). Children, less than 18 years, are not allowed to cast a vote, buy liquor, fireworks, and tobacco. They are not allowed to open a bank account. It is worth noting that individuals below 16 years are not allowed to agree to sexual advances, neither are they allowed to quit schooling, they are not allowed to purchase pets as well as participating in gambling or lottery.

Trends in Offending by Children:

There has been a significant drop in the number of minors apprehended, charged, and sentenced in the last decade. England and wales recorded over 200,000 minors who were arrested in the year 2011. Out of the 200,000.00, only 2,000 arrestees were above the ACR age.  In 2016, the same statistics showed a significant drop in the number of arrestees to 807,525. The numbers arrested who were above the ACR age was 703 only. The trials were classified as follows: about 3 % were charges against sexual offenses while 28 % were charges against violence to others. The drop in the fees is accredited to changes in strategy practices and the decreasing of recent cases into the Criminal Justice System far from the minors’ behaviors. The strategies are highly using disposition as to whether a minor is admitted into the CJS (the criminal justice system) or if it is better to be handled by other agencies. Children known to be in communication with the CJS either come from the less privileged communities or are troubled growing-up, mostly those coming from less advantages families. Most minors who have records of committing crimes are known to have cases of drug and substance abuse and mental illness conditions. These minors are known to have communication problems, learning disabilities, and mental illnesses such as Autism. According to the Board, these conditions increase a child’s probability of committing a chargeable offense (2016).

Policy Context

According to the UN Convention on children’s rights, the emphasis is on the necessity to call for special shielding and constitutional protection of minors. It encourages disciplining minors outside court as well as advocating for the ACR age set to be taking into consideration the minors’ emotional immaturity. In 2007, there was a motion by the UN CRC to have an ACR of lower than 12 years to be rejected internationally. After the movement, this saw many countries to have their ACR increased, leaving only Europe and the United Kingdom to be left having one of the least ACR in the world. According to Bateman, the commission has continued to compel Europe and the UK to have their ACR age stepped up to 12, (2012). This move has received a lot of support from the Law Society, the Royal Society, Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Children’s’ Commissioners plus many other international organizations. Different people around the world have different opinions about the ACR age. A percentage of the public believes that children are committing offenses at a high rate, and there is a need to have something done. A study carried out in the UK in 2010 showed that 40% of adults are in agreement with the current ACR age. Similar research done it Scotland in 2016 indicated that 95% of the people who participated in the study were for the idea that the ACR should be increased to 12. It is argued that children have to take responsibility for their action and hence the need to have the ACR age remain at ten years. A murder case study of a minor, James Bugler, who was killed by a ten-year-old minor, continued an essential case study that the authorities insisted on having the ACR age to be maintained at the current ten years. According to England and Wales government statistics of the year closed in March 2018, statistics indicate that there were 47 10-year-old minors and 229 11-year-old minor who was cautioned bout reported offenses. There were concerns raised by the watchdog about the well-being of children in youth custody, drawing attention to the fact that prison environment conditions were up to standards, and the use of self-disciplining methods on the children was on the decrease at the prison facilities.

Policy Developments in the UK

The ACR age for Scotland is eight years. Moreover, it follows that the minors who have not yet hit 12 years have fewer chances of going through a lawful trial. The children between ages 8 to 10 years are taken to a Children Hearing System and are supposed to be held accountable where there is a criminal record kept against them. According to the Department of Education, Scotland introduced an Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill that was meant to see the ACR age to go up in 2015.

Northern Ireland

There was a tabled motion in 2011 by the department of justice to review and have the ACR increased to 12 years from 10 years. There was strong support for the action across Northern Ireland. Eventually, the proposal was not passed, and the failure to have the movement implemented was cited for having been supported by the absence of universal political agreement. Wales and England successive governments have recapitulated the availability of the objective to change the ACR age to anything above ten years. A statement by the department of youth justice made clear their position that it is in order to take action against the minors if they commit an offense. Further to this, the government indicated that the children aged ten and above were in a position to differentiate right and wrong, and so it was entirely in order to have them charged against their actions,

Research and Child Development

It is essential to have a look at the child development process in the brain and what causes them to think about committing crimes. The knowledge of the brain biology procedure supporting teenage behavior has led to the raise of queries associated with the extent to which minors should be held responsible for their behavior and actions. According to Howard League for Penal reform, the ACR age was decided when there was very minimal knowledge about the brain idea of development available. The royal society report indicated that the ACR that is now put already is not reasonable and that those set ages are low, which their decisions may be influenced by their brain development. The adolescent period from age 10 to 19 is characterized by significant changes in brain development and behavioral changes. This shows a universal recognition of the ways in which offending minors, the crime –age curve shows there is an increase in criminal activities in children where there is an increase in the crimes during early adolescents and the same declines during the previous years of adulthood.

Adolescent Behaviour

Immature behaviors are witnessed to be coming from lower neural development and play a large sign in minor’s attentiveness in chargeable criminal acts. The way their neurological brains are set to biologically develop makes them put at an immediate priority consequence and not look at the outcomes in the long run. Furthermore, minors who are affected by adversity in their earlier life tend to show high activities in the wrong and doesn’t seem to care about the same.

Research conducted by the UK government has shown that minors are able to make choices in just like adults do, even though their choices are controlled laboratory settings of their brains, yet though the decision-making process is seen to be controlled by factors beyond their control such as peer pressure  not forgetting many others

In between minors of the age of 10-12 years, there is a tendency to drift away from showing in a way that to be informed consent is sought from guardians. Children are likely to be involved in crimes in peers, with single crimes being reported to become popular when the person concerned is in their later years say the 20s. When minors are brought up with bad companies chances are high that the same group of children who are observed to have characteristic behavior where the minor is seen being antisocial during their initial stages of life development and are faced with a more significant peril of buying the evil characters moving with them into the next phase of development.

Moral Development and Criminal Responsibility

A number of people believe that the strategy that has been put to the ACR age is supposed told be made available to the public know by using s mechanism of comprehending the knowledge of moral and neurological brain evolution. According to the contents of this essay, criminal liability is seen to belong to two ways ideas which are: the decision to be involved in criminal activities, the possibility of being in charge of one’s actions.

Evolving Criminal Capacities 

Criminal liability here is seen as much added to just knowing the impending controversy among those of lousy behavior as compared to the ones with good practice. According to research carried out in the UK, this announces that the current integrity, not forgetting being civilized morally is not accomplished until teenage years, where critical thinking and ability to solve problems develop between 11 years–15, youthful brain development capability is seen to come to a grown-up level of thinking at 17 years. Minors who are neglected or abused are, in particular, seen to develop poorly feeling capacities are they have higher chances of becoming law offenders.

Capacities at Court

Minors are used to being taught how to be responsible to their elders, who include parents and teachers, but a cohort of bad tactics brought up in an unfamiliar environment where they become law offenders before long. Legal liability means acquiring responsibility that is to be involved when a legitimate charge proceeding is going on. Even though the aforementioned responsibilities are tabled across cases where the constitution related actions are adequate, there is a determine if the minor is fit to stand the trial or not, one is not expected to start demanding to be taken (the minors) into small assessing areas, and this is according to the Department for Education, an article published in 2015. Young children mostly lack these responsibilities and are exposed to high chances of making bad decisions. There are worries that most children over the ACR are not able to be involved in their court cases.

Children in Conflict with the Law

According to Unlawful integrity avenue research in 2014, when a minor over the ACR age but under adult age namely 18 comes into interaction with the law enforcing team they can be apprehended and put in cells, although this is believed to be the last option that should be taken against the offender. Trials are made to send the minor from the CJS at this age, with permission from parents to have the minors mind diverted to other activities although a number of children who are arrested end up being charged in a court of law, where they are accused in the presence of an adult. When children commit offenses that are serious crimes such as lynching, killing, and unlawful sexual intercourse, in this case, the minor is actually taken to a juvenile court. A research carried out in 2016 by the department of youth justice in the UK showed urgency for minors to be handled better and shown love by adults in charge of them, and the court has brought out clear guidelines that safeguard the children.

While these protections exist in theory and not real life, there are significant disadvantages at each level of the minors’ growth. In particular, there is less knowledge as few are trained for professional positions, including doctors, teacher’s police, lawyers, judges not forgetting about nurses who interact with, and as well as determining responsibility demands to the minor. A number put across different procedures other than the applied Scottish method called for.

Sentencing

A few crimes bear given outcomes at the court, including custodial sentences, without taking into consideration the age of the minor, but most being minors receive family-based case outcomes. In 2016–2017, 1,600 minors were given custody sentences. Juveniles can be jailed inside secure training centers (STC), SCH (children secure homes), and (YOI) young offender institutions. The institutions have eyes put on health services and educational services that are to be rendered to the minor, putting into consideration the minor’s specific needs. SCHs are run by local authorities and take children from age 10. They also house minors under welfare regulations.  These institutions only take young lawbreakers in the age bracket 10-21 years. This move has been challenged by the Howard League for Penal Reform, in 2013, for being a move that punishes beyond the standard correction limit. If this existing junior sentence is served beyond the minors’ 18^th year of life, then the minor is send across to a YOI, according to Howard League for Penal Reform, 2013. Interest has been brought across on the handling of minors when they are in jail, where has been an infringement of their human rights. Children go through solitude, corporal punishment, and involuntary undressing.

Outcomes for Children

There has been confirmation where detaining is not seen to scale down the probability of being involved in another crime or the imminent danger the minor possesses to the public. For instance, a minor who has been mistreated or manhandled by the correcting institution has lower chances of developing a repetitive behavior of being involved in crime.  Being held in a corrective facility has nothing to do with involvement in lesser crimes and forms part of higher crimes in minors, recommitting ability for children who passed through corrective institutions of correction. Countries that record low existing ACR, for instance, the UK, in return, record large numbers of minor jailing in institutions, and the result is that there is less correction at these facilities.

Young ACR age is not known to prevent minors not to go into recommitting a crime. The fact that a minor is put on a correction center does interfere with a minor’s right to formal education and consequently getting competence, which is needed to help secure employment. This means that the minor will always fall for the least available nonformal job available.

Minors who are meant to go through conviction have to endure postponement when getting remedy or healing when contrasted with those in correction centers guided by welfare laws.

A number of sentiments require to be published when applying for jobs or schools if one has ever been convicted and or jailed in juvenile court and corrections center. The information is a minus to the reputation of the individual and may as well as add to the misfortunes the minor will have in life, including being denied chances because of the information despite the fact that they might have grown into changed adults. According to Goldson, these individuals with such a past and such experience, it’s possible for them to be involved in criminal activities as they are already veterans in the same.  On to the same point, minors who have court sessions are likely to get media fame, and this has a severe meaning on to the individual both in the short run and in the long term.

Alternatives to Criminalization

Looking to ACR needs a further look into in order to device the best ways of disciplining minors in the right direction. Considering getting ACR age to 12 has been supported by many countries, even though few have implemented. It is believed that welfare agencies are able to maintain the fewer numbers of the minors between 10-11 as the ACR age remains at 12. Societies who have passed higher ACRs age have a characteristic of giving the correct their children other than taking them to court. Initial mediation is a significant way of keeping minor offenders in controlled numbers. These can be achieved by having caregivers and parents to be involved in the process of correcting juvenile offenders.

. The following are some of the ways in which that can be achieved:

• Less interference strategies call for communicative correction mechanisms if and only if it is advantageous to the minor law breaker..
• As shown in Scotland, Minors court cases shifts to welfare corrective centers only when the case is a significant crime against humanity is the minor taken to a juvenile court.
• Welfare regulations are suspected of expropriating the minors their liberation to the dander of harming their reputations either now or in the future.
• To be jailed in a correction center is a Welfare decision made in minors act in 1989.

The minor’s viewpoint requires the consideration of the adjustments to the ACR age to be investigated. Scanty analysis has been done up to this day, although the majority of Scotland was for the idea that the ACR age to be changed to 12 years.

References

Bateman, T. (2012) Criminalising children for no useful purpose: the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales, NAYJ Campaign Paper., October 2012.

Bateman, T. (2014) Catching them young- some reflections on the meaning of the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales. Safer Communities, 13 (3) pp 133-142

Department for Education (2015) Children looked after in England (including adoption and care leavers), year ending 31 March 2015.

Goldson, B. (2013) Unsafe, unjust, and harmful to broader society: grounds for raising the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales. Youth Justice, 13 (2) 111-130

Howard League for Penal Reform (2013) Child arrests in England and Wales 2008-2011: Research Briefing.

Howard League for Penal Reform (2017) Child arrests in England and Wales 2016: Research Briefing.

McAra, L. & McVie, S. (2010). Youth Crime and Justice: Key Messages from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime. Criminology and Criminal Justice,10(2), 179-209

Youth Justice Board. (2016). Youth Justice Statistics 2016/17 England and Wales