More European madness
Discussion
Alvaro Gil-Robles, Human Rights Commissioner at the 46-nation Council of Europe, recommended that the age of criminal responsibility in Britain should be raised to the levels of other European countries, where children generally have limited responsibility from 13 or 14 and full responsibility at 18.
Do they not realise that already we are far too soft on criminals in this age range?
Full Telegraph article below...
Children as young as 12 or 13 should not be brought before the criminal courts, a European watchdog said yesterday.
Alvaro Gil-Robles, Human Rights Commissioner at the 46-nation Council of Europe, recommended that the age of criminal responsibility in Britain should be raised to the levels of other European countries, where children generally have limited responsibility from 13 or 14 and full responsibility at 18.
In the first report on the United Kingdom since his post was established in 1999, the commissioner said he was surprised to learn that the age of criminal responsibility was 10 in England and Wales and just eight in Scotland.
"I have extreme difficulty in accepting that a child of 12 or 13 can be criminally culpable for his actions in the same sense as an adult," he said.
Extreme measures might be needed both to punish criminal behaviour by children and correct what had gone wrong, he accepted. But it was an "excessive leap" to treat children of 12 as able to measure the consequences of their actions with the full consciousness of an adult.
Mr Gil-Robles, 60, an academic lawyer and Spain's former national ombudsman, was particularly concerned about the use of anti-social behaviour orders on children as young as 10 in England and Wales and 12 in Scotland.
Asbos risked "alienating and stigmatising children, thereby entrenching them in their errant behaviour", he said. They might be appropriate for seriously and repetitively troublesome youths, but it was another thing to impose them on youngsters who were up to no good.
The Government said the key watershed for starting to offend was between 11 and 13, while most young people were mature enough at 10 to know the difference between right and wrong.
Do they not realise that already we are far too soft on criminals in this age range?
Full Telegraph article below...
Children as young as 12 or 13 should not be brought before the criminal courts, a European watchdog said yesterday.
Alvaro Gil-Robles, Human Rights Commissioner at the 46-nation Council of Europe, recommended that the age of criminal responsibility in Britain should be raised to the levels of other European countries, where children generally have limited responsibility from 13 or 14 and full responsibility at 18.
In the first report on the United Kingdom since his post was established in 1999, the commissioner said he was surprised to learn that the age of criminal responsibility was 10 in England and Wales and just eight in Scotland.
"I have extreme difficulty in accepting that a child of 12 or 13 can be criminally culpable for his actions in the same sense as an adult," he said.
Extreme measures might be needed both to punish criminal behaviour by children and correct what had gone wrong, he accepted. But it was an "excessive leap" to treat children of 12 as able to measure the consequences of their actions with the full consciousness of an adult.
Mr Gil-Robles, 60, an academic lawyer and Spain's former national ombudsman, was particularly concerned about the use of anti-social behaviour orders on children as young as 10 in England and Wales and 12 in Scotland.
Asbos risked "alienating and stigmatising children, thereby entrenching them in their errant behaviour", he said. They might be appropriate for seriously and repetitively troublesome youths, but it was another thing to impose them on youngsters who were up to no good.
The Government said the key watershed for starting to offend was between 11 and 13, while most young people were mature enough at 10 to know the difference between right and wrong.
miniman said:
IMHO this would be OK providing that the balance of the "criminal responsibility" transfers to the parents of the little ers.
Completely agree. I think my 12 year old daughter would be very offended if someone said she is not responsible for her own actions. She certainly knows what's right and wrong and she'd be more worried about what myself and Trackside would do to her than anything else. BUT every child is different, and some are brought up in households where parents can't be bothered by what their offspring do.
In those instances, the parents should be held responsible for their childrens actions and hopefully, people who choose to reproduce will realise that actually, you have a role to play in teaching your child responsiblity instead of just popping out a sprog and leaving it roam wild.
Crap parents should be punished.
Mrs Trackside said:
IMHO this would be OK providing that the balance of the "criminal responsibility" transfers to the parents of the little
Completely agree. I think my 12 year old daughter would be very offended if someone said she is not responsible for her own actions. She certainly knows what's right and wrong and she'd be more worried about what myself and Trackside would do to her than anything else. BUT every child is different, and some are brought up in households where parents can't be bothered by what their offspring do.
In those instances, the parents should be held responsible for their childrens actions and hopefully, people who choose to reproduce will realise that actually, you have a role to play in teaching your child responsiblity instead of just popping out a sprog and leaving it roam wild.
Crap parents should be punished.
Agree 100%
So not total 'madness' by the Eu then?
968 said:
[So not total 'madness' by the Eu then?
I deliberatly didn't say EU madness because the council of Europe is a seperate organisation.
I believe in personal responsibility, any child,no matter what their background, who is over the age of 10 should be punished for their crimes, this punishment should be less than that of an adult, but always the main criteria should be protecting the general populace from them.
JagLover said:
[So not total 'madness' by the Eu then?
I deliberatly didn't say EU madness because the council of Europe is a seperate organisation.
I believe in personal responsibility, any child,no matter what their background, who is over the age of 10 should be punished for their crimes, this punishment should be less than that of an adult, but always the main criteria should be protecting the general populace from them.
And what about the parents, who are often the cause of their bad behaviour?
968 said:
And what about the parents, who are often the cause of their bad behaviour?
What are you going to do, take their benefits away?
The time to worry about the parents is before the child is born, to end the state subsidisation of the destruction of the institution of marriage.
968 said:
968 said:
[So not total 'madness' by the Eu then?
I deliberatly didn't say EU madness because the council of Europe is a seperate organisation.
I believe in personal responsibility, any child,no matter what their background, who is over the age of 10 should be punished for their crimes, this punishment should be less than that of an adult, but always the main criteria should be protecting the general populace from them.
And what about the parents, who are often the cause of their bad behaviour?
I think that's the key. Children should be punished for their actions if they do wrong. The unfortunate thing is that some parents just don't care what their kids are doing, so the children aren't getting punished, and therefore, not learning how to behave in society.
I don't think you can completely absolve one or the other from the responsibility of wrong doing, therefore, BOTH children who consistently behave in an unacceptable manner, PLUS their parents should be held accountable for the wrongdoing.
Mrs Trackside said:
I don't think you can completely absolve one or the other from the responsibility of wrong doing, therefore, BOTH children who consistently behave in an unacceptable manner, PLUS their parents should be held accountable for the wrongdoing.
That is already happening to some extent, parents can be evicted from council homes due to misbehaviour by their children.
JagLover said:
I don't think you can completely absolve one or the other from the responsibility of wrong doing, therefore, BOTH children who consistently behave in an unacceptable manner, PLUS their parents should be held accountable for the wrongdoing.
That is already happening to some extent, parents can be evicted from council homes due to misbehaviour by their children.
But the parents are not really given an incentive to change the ways of their children and themselves (who the kids must learn how to behave from).
Because they are being made homeless by the council and they have children, the council have an obligation to rehouse them. All that happens is that the problem is moved from one place to another, it's not actually dealt with.
JagLover said:
And what about the parents, who are often the cause of their bad behaviour?
What are you going to do, take their benefits away?
The time to worry about the parents is before the child is born, to end the state subsidisation of the destruction of the institution of marriage.
Why not? sounds like a start, and an incentive to pull their fingers out of their a*ses. Whilst their at it, why not force them into parenting classes? Or perhaps make the whole family do community service? I can say that young Biffa won't be too quick to reoffend if Fatha has to do some time for Biffa's crimes.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff