At What Age - does one become a "criminal"?
Discussion
From David Barrett in "MEN"
Per a document from the Centre for Crime und judicial Studies (CCJS) ASBOS should be scrapped und the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to age 18 und not 10 years as present :roll:
It also suggested children should not be locked up in any secure units
I am sure Jamie Bulger's killers knew exactly what they were doing ,.. as did Mary Bell und others across Europe. Children are not some angelic form .. who only become capable of badness when they reach adulthood. :roll: Ist age 12-14 in Europe dependent on state .. by the way.
I note Dayvee now distances himself from this in his address to Police Fed Conference per BBC news :roll:
But this lady seem to have taken his word to heart :roll:
The negative perception of a "hoody wearing yob" should be challenged. The age of criminal responsibilty should be raised to 18 und ASBOS abolished
No child should be in prison und all alternatives should be sought
Rob Reitermeier of the Children's Association says the age for criminal responsibility should be 14 und criminolgists from Liverpool Uni argue for age 16 und even 18 years.
So what happen if 16-17 year old TWOC und kill or maim someone. :?
They are not responsible?
They supposed to be educated to goldy A star grades which ist supposed to mean they can actually think after all
Do not agree. Age 12 seem fairly reasonable to me .. in reality. Child should know what ist right und acceptable und what ist wrong und not acceptable by then
UK locks up more kids than anywhere in EU per this report.
We also have poorest parental skills und highest number of single teenage mamas .. which perhaps explain why we cannot control these kids . Und we also seem to place a child on a pedestal too.. yielding to each whim.
Not in this household.. kittens have to earn this privilege of provision by respecting our home und general "live/let live within fair tolerated reason rules"
basically it mean doing what Mad Doc say.. und he say it mean doing what I say
The report suggested putting responsibility for youth justice from Home Office to Department for Education.
Und recommend children who commit a serious crime should be "punished" by a residential training order of up to 5 years.
(Ach.. they mean what we have already "Young Offenders" - Formerly Borstal or something :? )
CCJS spokesman said
We believe the current age of criminal responsibilty ist too low und there need to be an urgent rethink.
We want to start a debate as to what the new age should be.
We think the Ministry of Justice should look at this as a priority
This government ist committed to the criminalisation of children und young people as mainstream policy
This last quote ist really the nub of the discussion.
What do you guys think?
How old ist a "criminal?" Und ist the government really trying to criminalise children? :roll:
I thought it was nowty drivers 
Per a document from the Centre for Crime und judicial Studies (CCJS) ASBOS should be scrapped und the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to age 18 und not 10 years as present :roll:
It also suggested children should not be locked up in any secure units
I am sure Jamie Bulger's killers knew exactly what they were doing ,.. as did Mary Bell und others across Europe. Children are not some angelic form .. who only become capable of badness when they reach adulthood. :roll: Ist age 12-14 in Europe dependent on state .. by the way.
I note Dayvee now distances himself from this in his address to Police Fed Conference per BBC news :roll:
But this lady seem to have taken his word to heart :roll:
hug a hoody person from the London Young People's Unit said:
The negative perception of a "hoody wearing yob" should be challenged. The age of criminal responsibilty should be raised to 18 und ASBOS abolished
No child should be in prison und all alternatives should be sought
Rob Reitermeier of the Children's Association says the age for criminal responsibility should be 14 und criminolgists from Liverpool Uni argue for age 16 und even 18 years.
So what happen if 16-17 year old TWOC und kill or maim someone. :? They are not responsible?
They supposed to be educated to goldy A star grades which ist supposed to mean they can actually think after all
Do not agree. Age 12 seem fairly reasonable to me .. in reality. Child should know what ist right und acceptable und what ist wrong und not acceptable by then
UK locks up more kids than anywhere in EU per this report.
We also have poorest parental skills und highest number of single teenage mamas .. which perhaps explain why we cannot control these kids . Und we also seem to place a child on a pedestal too.. yielding to each whim.
Not in this household.. kittens have to earn this privilege of provision by respecting our home und general "live/let live within fair tolerated reason rules"
basically it mean doing what Mad Doc say.. und he say it mean doing what I say
The report suggested putting responsibility for youth justice from Home Office to Department for Education.
Und recommend children who commit a serious crime should be "punished" by a residential training order of up to 5 years.
(Ach.. they mean what we have already "Young Offenders" - Formerly Borstal or something :? )
CCJS spokesman said
CCJS spokesman said:
We believe the current age of criminal responsibilty ist too low und there need to be an urgent rethink.
We want to start a debate as to what the new age should be.
We think the Ministry of Justice should look at this as a priority
This government ist committed to the criminalisation of children und young people as mainstream policy
This last quote ist really the nub of the discussion.
What do you guys think?
How old ist a "criminal?" Und ist the government really trying to criminalise children? :roll:
I thought it was nowty drivers
vonhosen said:
Only when they reach the age of 14 is a child assumed to know right from wrong.
Between 10 & 14 the prosecution have to prove they knew right from wrong.
Below 10 they are deemed unable to know.
Between 10 & 14 the prosecution have to prove they knew right from wrong.
Below 10 they are deemed unable to know.
Danke Liebchen .. but this seem in line with rest of Europe who have age 12 as age they are to prove they know right from wrong und 14 as age they presumed to know this difference.
But
Why do these folk want to raise it? What ist your experience as cop und would such a move make life easier or harder for you? After all - what could you do with that 12 year old who drank a skinful und nicked her dad's car und then gave a mouthful to the mag who jailed her for her own good .. und rightly given the attitude of the parent saying "they were proud of a daughter who could make up her own mind und stand up for herself when faced with authoritarians!" 
Lower the age of criminal responsibility to 0
BUT
allow Magistrates/Judges/Juries the scope to agree that X was not responsible due to age/mental age etc.
This should take the grin off the faces of the young scrotes who say "you can't touch me - I'm only 9" but also allow some leeway in the case of people with a mental age much lower than their bilogical age, whatever their biological age.
Russ
BUT
allow Magistrates/Judges/Juries the scope to agree that X was not responsible due to age/mental age etc.
This should take the grin off the faces of the young scrotes who say "you can't touch me - I'm only 9" but also allow some leeway in the case of people with a mental age much lower than their bilogical age, whatever their biological age.
Russ
TVR 3X said:
Lower the age of criminal responsibility to 0
BUT
allow Magistrates/Judges/Juries the scope to agree that X was not responsible due to age/mental age etc.
This should take the grin off the faces of the young scrotes who say "you can't touch me - I'm only 9" but also allow some leeway in the case of people with a mental age much lower than their bilogical age, whatever their biological age.
Russ
BUT
allow Magistrates/Judges/Juries the scope to agree that X was not responsible due to age/mental age etc.
This should take the grin off the faces of the young scrotes who say "you can't touch me - I'm only 9" but also allow some leeway in the case of people with a mental age much lower than their bilogical age, whatever their biological age.
Russ
Not a bad idea at all.
One thought though...what happens if you get a gang of kids who 'befriend' an low-IQ lad and persuade him that it's a great idea to commit all these crimes. He's happy as he has lots of friends who apparently like him, they're getting their kicks vicariously, court system still hamstrung.
Of course, you can never make something perfect, and your idea DOES have a lot of merit...
havoc said:
TVR 3X said:
Lower the age of criminal responsibility to 0
BUT
allow Magistrates/Judges/Juries the scope to agree that X was not responsible due to age/mental age etc.
This should take the grin off the faces of the young scrotes who say "you can't touch me - I'm only 9" but also allow some leeway in the case of people with a mental age much lower than their bilogical age, whatever their biological age.
Russ
BUT
allow Magistrates/Judges/Juries the scope to agree that X was not responsible due to age/mental age etc.
This should take the grin off the faces of the young scrotes who say "you can't touch me - I'm only 9" but also allow some leeway in the case of people with a mental age much lower than their bilogical age, whatever their biological age.
Russ
Not a bad idea at all.
One thought though...what happens if you get a gang of kids who 'befriend' an low-IQ lad and persuade him that it's a great idea to commit all these crimes. He's happy as he has lots of friends who apparently like him, they're getting their kicks vicariously, court system still hamstrung.
Of course, you can never make something perfect, and your idea DOES have a lot of merit...
Couldn't they be had for "aiding and abetting"?
esselte said:
havoc said:
TVR 3X said:
Lower the age of criminal responsibility to 0
BUT
allow Magistrates/Judges/Juries the scope to agree that X was not responsible due to age/mental age etc.
This should take the grin off the faces of the young scrotes who say "you can't touch me - I'm only 9" but also allow some leeway in the case of people with a mental age much lower than their bilogical age, whatever their biological age.
Russ
BUT
allow Magistrates/Judges/Juries the scope to agree that X was not responsible due to age/mental age etc.
This should take the grin off the faces of the young scrotes who say "you can't touch me - I'm only 9" but also allow some leeway in the case of people with a mental age much lower than their bilogical age, whatever their biological age.
Russ
Not a bad idea at all.
One thought though...what happens if you get a gang of kids who 'befriend' an low-IQ lad and persuade him that it's a great idea to commit all these crimes. He's happy as he has lots of friends who apparently like him, they're getting their kicks vicariously, court system still hamstrung.
Of course, you can never make something perfect, and your idea DOES have a lot of merit...
Couldn't they be had for "aiding and abetting"?
Exactly, would it not be the same as paying a hit man?
and low IQ wouldnt come into the equation, you would have to be mentally impaired not just a bit thick.
i do think 0 would be a little excessive though. maybe an age of around 7. But, if someone under the age of say 12 was comitting an offence then surely the parents should have to answer to someone?
Don said:
Compulsory, reversible sterilisation at age 8.
Its the only way.
Imagine the vast amount of human misery it would save.
Edited to point out that most of my tongue is pressed reasonably firmly into my cheek.
Its the only way.
Imagine the vast amount of human misery it would save.
Edited to point out that most of my tongue is pressed reasonably firmly into my cheek.
Edited by Don on Friday 18th May 12:23
Well if it would stop all these kids having kids temporaty compulsory sterilisation could be the answer, would i have to vote conservative tho for this to happen?
I could never understand how you need a licence for a dog but any chav and chavette can go and futher poison the gene pool!
adam11 said:
I could never understand how you need a licence for a dog but any chav and chavette can go and futher poison the gene pool!
It's all part of Labour's cunning plan - to ensure they never ever lose power they need to do the following:-
1) Jerrymander the boundaries in their favour (true);
2) Create more state jobs than are really needed (hmmm
); 3) Create even more of the welfare classes, through sacking inspectors (true) and extending the benefits that are on offer (hmmm
); 4) Reduce the average IQ and ambition of the electorate...which can be simplest achieved through encouraging chavs to breed like rabbits...and ooh, #3's a good way of doing that!
So...there is Labour's 4-point plan for domination of an increasingly-scummy country. What do you think?!?*
* NB - all firmly tongue-in-cheek...well, mainly so. But it's scary how well it all hangs together, eh?!?
adam11 said:
Don said:
Compulsory, reversible sterilisation at age 8.
Its the only way.
Imagine the vast amount of human misery it would save.
Edited to point out that most of my tongue is pressed reasonably firmly into my cheek.
Its the only way.
Imagine the vast amount of human misery it would save.
Edited to point out that most of my tongue is pressed reasonably firmly into my cheek.
Edited by Don on Friday 18th May 12:23
Well if it would stop all these kids having kids temporaty compulsory sterilisation could be the answer, would i have to vote conservative tho for this to happen?
I could never understand how you need a licence for a dog but any chav and chavette can go and futher poison the gene pool!
Er dog licences went out years ago!
chrispy porker said:
adam11 said:
Don said:
Compulsory, reversible sterilisation at age 8.
Its the only way.
Imagine the vast amount of human misery it would save.
Edited to point out that most of my tongue is pressed reasonably firmly into my cheek.
Its the only way.
Imagine the vast amount of human misery it would save.
Edited to point out that most of my tongue is pressed reasonably firmly into my cheek.
Edited by Don on Friday 18th May 12:23
Well if it would stop all these kids having kids temporaty compulsory sterilisation could be the answer, would i have to vote conservative tho for this to happen?
I could never understand how you need a licence for a dog but any chav and chavette can go and futher poison the gene pool!
Er dog licences went out years ago!
Always said the country is going to the dogs!
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff