Age is a critical issue and it influences whether a child is capable of standing a trial process and it determines possible punishments for specified ages of children. The age of criminal responsibility abbreviated as ACR denotes the lowest age a child must have to be prosecuted or penalized by law for wrongdoing. The age varies globally depending on each country’s legislation and infants who have not attained the identified age can avoid trial by demonstrating evidence on the defense of infancy (Damm, Larsen, Nielsen " Simonsen, 2017). The age of criminal responsibility in England, similar to two other countries (Wales and Northern Ireland) under United Kingdom umbrella, is 10 years which 2 years below the international juvenile justice requirements; therefore, sparking an active debate on whether England needs to alter its ACR or maintain it at 10 (Crofts, 2015). This research details some of the significant matters which should affect ACR and why England should change or sustain its ACR.
Research Background
According to Stevens, (2016. p.413), United Kingdom devolved the age of criminal responsibility (ACR) meaning that every member country has its unique approach and specifications on the matter, despite that, England, Wales and Northern Ireland stated their ACR at 10 years while Scotland is the only country in the European region where a child aged 8 years can be prosecuted. Having comparisons such as Scotland which has even lower ACR does not justify England’s 10 years ACR since there are key attempts to increase Scotland’s ACR from 8years to 12 years. Being able to apprehend a 10-year-old child in England for prosecution in court symbolizes that the English law regards such a child as mature enough and should be accountable legally (Cunneen, Goldson and Russell, 2017). Such an assumption of English law disregards the international accords on children’s rights and breaches the children’s civil rights. Under the UK laws, children aged below 18 children are prohibited from voting, sitting on juries and several other issues.
Trends in Children offences
Many of the children arrested and passed through the filters of the justice system have been found to be undergoing troubling familial histories which are reported to compromise their ability to stand trials. The study shows that the number of children apprehended and prosecuted has been falling over time, for instance, in 2011 more than 200,000 children aged below 18 years were captured in both England and Wales, out of the 200,000 children, only 2,000 were of age between 10 and 11 years. However, later in 2016 only 87,525 children were arrested in both countries and those between 10 and 11 years were 703 (Williams, 2015).
In the period between 2016 and 2017, many of the confirmed children offences were found to be majorly non-violent and consisted of issues such as theft, damaging of properties, driving offences and drug-related misdoings. Only 28 percent of the prosecutions was instigated by violence against other children while 3% of the convictions emanated from sexual-related offences. While realizing that the number of children arrests have been reducing owing to the commensurate changes undertaken by the Police and targeting to decrease the number of first-time entrants into the CJS, key measures need to be addressed urgently to increase the ACR. The police have been more observant in choosing the appropriate destination for children to get help, other than being rigid on the court process (Cunneen, Goldson and Russell, 2017).
Duff, (2018, p.128) contends that a significant number of children who are processed through England’s Criminal Justice System emanate from the ethnic minority origins, besides, they are found to have been raised up under the care of underprivileged families which in many cases lead them to be the victims of past crimes. Such children exhibit intense levels of mental disturbance and substance misuse. Further findings show that 23 to 32% of the children have learning disabilities while 60 to 90% of them have communication complications while some have neuron functionality disorders, for instance, autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Cunneen, Goldson and Russell, 2017). In recognition of the disturbing mental and body health issues which such children undergo, it raises sufficient concerns whether they should be undertaken through courts and criminal proceedings.
UN Child Rights Policy
The UN Convention touching on the rights of children have regularly reiterated the importance of enforcing special protections and suitable legal defense for young people and advancement of non-judicial arrangements to aid in managing children especially where children’s actions are conflicting with the law. UN further expects countries to state the minimum ACR which recognizes the emotional and intellectual growth level despite its committee having removed international recognition of 12 years ACR in 2007. Fjell et al, (2013, p.47) says that the UN’s 12 year ACR guided several countries in the globe in increasing their ACR; however, countries of the UK did not increase their ACRs making England to have one of the least ACRs in the Europe.
United Nation's Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN CRC) have on numerous occasions pressured the United Kingdom to influence its member countries to raise the ACR at least to 12 years. In equal measures, several organizations and bodies have voiced their support for such changes including the Law Societies, The Children’s Commissioners, and even the Royal Society (Loeber and Farrington, 2014). The public has rendered a mixed opinion on the debate regarding ACR especially while other people acknowledged the crimes from children as growing and calling on the government to act with stiffer actions, some people have argued that ACR should be increased. For instance, in 2008 a YouGov poll found out that only below half of their respondents opined that children crimes were on increase in contrast with two-fifths of British adults who supported the increase of the ACR (Arthur 2016).
While all respondents agree that children should be held accountable for the crimes they commit and the public be protected from malicious offenders, there are more suitable and age-appropriate ways of handling children suspected of crimes. England, similar to Scotland should push for the raising of ACR. In 1993, a toddler, James Bulger was killed by two 10-year-old boys and the case has been one of the critical factors which have led to maintenance of ACR at 10 years in England (Mitchell, 2017).
Historically, England, as represented by UK, has regularly observed that children should not be prosecuted for criminal actions. Souhami, (2015. p.209) found that in the Period before the 20th century the region deemed children falling under seven years as unable to undertake criminal acts while those aged between 7 and 14 were protected under doli incapax
meaning that children are not likely to gain anything out of their criminal acts unless proven otherwise by the prosecutor. Later in the 1930s, British government increased ACR to 8 years and in the 1960s, under a Juvenile Justice Reassessments, it was increased to 10 in three UK countries except in Scotland.
England’s Policy Developments
Several subsequent governments have repetitively reiterated and stressed the absence of the need to review the country’s age of criminal responsibility. For example, in 2011, a statement issued regarding Youth Justice said that it was imperative to hold children above the 10 years responsible for their offenses. Later in 2012, the government argued that children above 10 years can distinguish between right and wrong behaviors. Attempts were made to debate a proposal to increase the ACR to 12 as Private Members’ Bill in the House of Lords and later government’s response re-stressed its earlier position; arguing that the present 10 ACR reflected what the justice system required (Cunneen, Goldson and Russell, 2017).
Research on the development of Children
Modern advances and comprehension of the human neurobiological processes regarding the behavior of adolescents stress the need to question the range to which children should be considered as able to account for their actions. Jayaraman et al (2016, p.77) noted that while considering that current England’s ACR was reviewed last in the 1960s, and at that time, there was comparatively less information available regarding the functionality of the brain development. Critics of the 10 years ACR argue that in the 1960s there were no compelling and informed reasons for placing the ACR at 10 years.
According to the report of the Royal Society, the present ACR is greatly low considering what is known regarding the developmental process of children’s brains and the subsequent process of human decision-making capacities. The adolescence period mainly between 10 to 19 years is crucial to neurodevelopmental processes and changes in human behaviours (Shulman, et al, 2016). During the stage, young people experience augmentation in the impulsive attitude, risk-taking, and a feeling of sensation-seeking mode which reaches an apex in later parts of the adolescence stage and eventually declines. The study findings have been noted in all human cultures studied and it reflects a universally recognized pattern of the age-crime curve which confirms that a tendency to engage in criminal acts climaxes in the late adolescent age before declining (Higgs, 2017).
Behaviour of Adolescents
Catley and Claydon, (2016, p.510), argued that studies into adolescents’ shows that their relative neurodevelopmental immaturity makes them more predisposed to engage in risky and highly criminal behaviours, furthermore, they are less capable of considering other people’s perspective in the process of making their decisions. The functionality and development of their brains contribute to them prioritizing instant and immediate rewards instead of looking for long-term consequences, correspondingly, people who experience adversity and aggression in their early lives exhibit significantly high activity in the reward regions of their brain, rendering them more susceptible to risk-taking behaviours.
Goldson, (2015, p.170) claims that adolescents can equally make decisions in an analogous manner to adults especially under a controlled laboratory surrounding; however, their decision-making approach and behavioural model in actual life is often affected by external factors, for instance, peer groups and social cues. It is common for people between the ages of 10 and 14 years to change from respecting what their parent say and paying more attention to what their peer members say. Teenagers are found to be comparatively more reckless and poor in planning when making decisions in peers than when alone, besides, adolescents value their peer associations, are more responsive to relationships, and are highly hypersensitive to seclusion.
Adolescents have an affinity to participate in criminal activities when in groups, however, young people develop solo-offending traits after attaining 20 years. Baldry, Briggs, Goldson and Russell, (2018, p.636) argues that despite many adolescents having multiple cases of delinquent behaviors, in many cases, a small subset of such young people can have historical of antisocial traits in their early stages of life and are more predominantly likely to participate in criminal behaviours which perseveres into adulthood.
The impact of Moral Development on the Criminal Responsibility
Wolf et al., (2015, p.5) argue that policy touching on the ACR should be influenced by the regards for the psychological and moral progress. According to Ashworth, (2016, p.112), two approaches which conceptualizes the moral development impact on the criminal responsibility includes the ability to participate in crime as outlined in the doctrine of doli incapax and ability to be considered legally responsible and be able to undergo a trial process.
Researchers in the children affairs and justice system argues that criminal responsibility should not be postulated by the simplistic understanding of variations between right and wrong, but acknowledges it as an evolving process which views criminal capacities as a set of well-interconnected mental capacities analysis in association to the law and morality which advances as time progresses and as experience is gathered (Damm, Larsen, Nielsen " Simonsen, 2017).
Campbell, (2017, p.696) claims that the capacity of children and their autonomy grows when they are accorded more rights and responsibilities, moreover, children should be assigned little legal accountability until they reach their late teen ages. The growth in the children’s autonomy is further affected by individual variances, environmental aspects, and predisposition to developmental and mental disorders which contribute to the varying levels of complexity. While identification of the appropriate age at which children may achieve the self-autonomy, have moral development capacity and to be criminally responsible remains a challenge, many people find England’s 10 years as extremely low (Nickerson and Nagle, 2005).
According to Ashworth, (2016, p.109), general research in the children behavior sector establishes that conventional morality which entails adherence to the law and order is not achievable amongst young people until they reach mid-teens which is around 15 to 16 years. Alternatively, logical thinking and ability to solve problem develops remarkably between 11 and 15 years. Children’s intellectual capacity develops to reach an adult’s equivalent level at the age of 17 years and children who suffer abuse, neglect or poor development are more likely to break the law.
Inability to contribute effectively in a court
While children at home or at school are often in constant communication with parents and teachers which raises their success in message delivery, it is unusual to have children as young as 10 contributing effectively in a court or judicial process. They lack the capacity to contribute effectively to a court process especially considering that courts are unfamiliar to them and have multiple procedures and complex language which is demanding meaning that it may be hard for them to contribute in a criminal trial (Eser, 2015). For adults, fair trial process is guided by multiple stipulations which can be easily tested, but in case of children, it is difficult to measure such capacities which include an ability to understand trial process, understand what is at stake, and be able to explain correct version of what happened. Past studies shows that young people are more likely to testify false information which can compromise the judicial process (Cunneen, Goldson and Russell, 2017).
Children Criminal Justice Path
Several arguments support increase of the ACR due to challenges that children undergo while in custody are countered with new and better ways in which police deal with such children (Flegel, 2016). Reduction of the number of children going through the CJS emanates from filtering process which police consider before undertaking a child through a court process. After the police get hold of a child who is above the ACR age but is under 18 years, they have several options on how to go about it; however, arrest and arraignment in courts is normally the last option for them. Bateman, (2014, p.133) finds that substantial assessment are continuously conducted to prevent children from undergoing the CJS way and the police have to liaise with other diversionary services which help in other services such as assessment of mental health, testing for substance abuse and even evaluation of challenges of learning. The processes filter off such children leaving around half of them to go through the court process. Supporters of the need to raise ACR still argue that child assessment process is not convincing enough especially considering that children are normally undeveloped in multiple ways; therefore, they question children capability testing process.
Farrington, (2015, p.386) says that children courts have been adapted to be less formal and more enticing for children to participate well. Parents, guardians, and carers are regularly allowed in to sit and talk with their children and even judicial officers such as magistrates are trained on how to effectively and conveniently handle children. Such children can only be tried in adults’ courts if their charges implicates adults and in cases whereby they are charged with grave crimes such as murder, firearm handling, sexual-related or even manslaughter; they are presented in the Crown Court. With adjustments in the court systems, it shows sufficient plans in effect to protect children from extreme and adverse condition of the trial process (Pillay and Willows, 2015).
Personal recommendation
Having individually assessed both merits and demerits concerning the impacts of ACR on the children and the society I would urge England to adopt United Nations agreed ACR of 12 years. According to my analysis, a majority of children below 12 years are extremely small and undeveloped in many ways which render them inappropriate to be processed through a judicial system regardless of all measures CJS have put in place to help them. Plucking a child under 12 years from his or her familial care is likely to impact the child negatively and in future, he or she is likely to be motivated to engage in other heinous acts (Cipriani, 2016).
I think that while the government maintains that children above 10 years are able to separate right from wrong, the government’s view is objected by psychological professionals who argue that the adolescence period (10 to 19 years) marks a crucial neurodevelopmental and behavioural change duration. According to psychological experts, children within that age are normal to undertake impulsive, risk-taking behaviors and such behaviours are likely to reach their climax in the late adolescence period (Fazel et al., 2007).
Having to take children aged 10 years through a CJS process is not only being inconsiderable to their state of young minds but is being uncaring of what it may have on the future adulthood of such a child. From my point of reasoning, children under twelve years should be guided by parents and teachers accordingly and can be trained in how to be morally upright people. Craigie, (2015. p.6) argues that when children commit offences, it should be viewed as the failure of the parents or the teachers in whose care such a kid falls (while at school or at home). From my point, I think it is irrational for a parent to seek the help of the police to punish or arrest their children below 12 years. Parents hold phenomenal tools which they use in their benefit to adjust the behavior of their children and such approaches include controlling the numbers of incentives and privileges which children get. Knowing that children love games, trips, gifts and multiple other things which can be used in controlling their behavior is key.
Conclusion
In summary, after considering the research background, trends in children offences, UN child rights policy, England’s policy developments, behavior of adolescents, the impact of moral development on the criminal responsibility, inability to contribute effectively in a court and the children criminal justice path, the study found that England should extend its ACR years 10 to United Nation’s 12 years. Though 12 years is still low considering that children neurodevelopmental processes and behavior formation may continue to late teens (18 or 19 years), providing the 12 years avails a critical balance between protection of the public interest and protection of undeveloped children. Increasing ACR from 10 to 12 will reduce possible arrests of such children and their parents can be encouraged to work on helping such children change behaviors and become better citizens.
References
Arthur, R., 2016. Exploring childhood, criminal responsibility and the evolving capacities of the child: the age.
Ashworth, A., 2016. rationales for sentencing in england and wales over five decades— ratatouille without a recipe?. Changing Contours of Criminal Justice, p.109.
Baldry, E., Briggs, D., Goldson, B. and Russell, S. (2018) ‘“Cruel and unusual punishment”: an inter-jurisdictional study of the criminalisation of young people with complex support needs’, Journal of Youth Studies, 21(5): 636-652
Bateman, T. (2014) Catching them young- some reflections on the meaning of the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales. Safer Communities,(3) pp 133-142
Campbell, L., 2017. Criminal records and human rights. Criminal law review., 2017(9), pp.696-702.
Catley, P. and Claydon, L., 2016. The use of neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom by those accused of criminal offenses in England and Wales. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 2(3), pp.510-549.
Cipriani, D., 2016. Children’s rights and the minimum age of criminal responsibility: a global perspective. Routledge.
Craigie, J., 2015. Against a singular understanding of legal capacity: Criminal responsibility and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. International journal of law and psychiatry, 40, pp.6-14.
Crofts, T., 2015. A brighter tomorrow: Raise the age of criminal responsibility. Current Issues Crim. Just., 27, p.123.
Cunneen, C. Goldson, B. and Russell, S. (2017) ‘Human rights and youth justice reform in England and Wales: A systemic analysis’, Criminology and Criminal Justice. 1-26
Cunneen, C., Goldson, B. and Russell, S., 2017. Human Rights and Youth Justice Reform in England and Wales: A Systemic Analysis (1991-2016).
Damm, A. P., Larsen, B. Ø., Nielsen, H. S., " Simonsen, M. (2017). Lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility: Consequences for juvenile crime and education. Aarhus: Institut for Økonomi, Aarhus Universitet. Economics Working Papers, No. 2017-10
Duff, R.A., 2018. Responsibility and Criminal Law: Comments on Vincent Chiao, Criminal Law in the Age of the Administrative State, Chapter 7. Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies, 17(1), pp.128-142.
Eser, A., 2015. . Grounds for excluding criminal responsibility(pp. 1126-1161). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH " Co. KG.
Eser, A., 2015. . Grounds for excluding criminal responsibility(pp. 1126-1161). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH " Co. KG.
Farrington, D.P., 2015. Cross-national comparative research on criminal careers, risk factors, crime and punishment. European Journal of Criminology, 12(4), pp.386-399.
Fazel, M., Langstrom, N., Grann, M. " Fazel, S. (2007) Psychopathology in adolescent and young adult criminal offenders (15–21 years) in Sweden. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol, DOI 10.1007/s00127-007-0295-8
Fjell, A,M., Westlye, L.T., Grydeland, H., Amlien, I., Espeseth, T., Reinvang, I., Walhovd, K.B. (2013). Critical ages in the life course of the adult brain: nonlinear subcortical aging. Neurobiol. Aging 34, 2239–47.
Flegel, M., 2016. Conceptualizing cruelty to children in nineteenth-century England: literature, representation, and the NSPCC. Routledge.
Goldson, B. (2015) ‘The Circular Motions of Penal Politics and the Pervasive Irrationalities of Child Imprisonment’, in Goldson, B. and Muncie, J. (eds) Youth Crime and Justice, 2nd edition. London, Sage: 170-190.
Higgs, T., Carter, A.J., Tully, R.J. and Browne, K.D., 2017. Sexual murder typologies: A systematic review. Aggression and violent behavior, 35, pp.1-12.
Jayaraman, J., Roberts, G.J., Wong, H.M., McDonald, F. and King, N.M., 2016. Ages of legal importance: implications in relation to birth registration and age assessment practices. Medicine, Science and the Law, 56(1), pp.77-82.
Kingdon, M.J., Barton, S., Eddy, J. and Halkitis, P.N., 2016. Facilitators and barriers to HIV status disclosure among HIV-positive MSM Age 50 and older. Journal of gay " lesbian mental health, 20(1), pp.41-56.
Loeber R and Farrington DP (2014) Age-crime curve. In: Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York: Springer, 12–18.
Mitchell, E.W., 2017. Self-made madness: Rethinking illness and criminal responsibility. Routledge.
Nickerson, A.B. " Nagle, R.J. (2005) Parent and peer relationships in middle childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(2) 223-249 76 Wolf, L.K., Bazargani, N., Kilford, E.J., Dumontheil. I. " Blakemore, S-J (2015). The audience effect in adolescence depends on who's looking over your shoulder. Journal of Adolescence, 43, 5-14.
Pillay, A.L. and Willows, C., 2015. Assessing the criminal capacity of children: A challenge to the capacity of mental health professionals. Journal of Child " Adolescent Mental Health, 27(2), pp.91-101.
Shulman, E.P. et al (2016) The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 17 pp103-7
Souhami, A., 2015. The Central Institutions of Youth Justice: Government Bureaucracy and the Importance of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. Youth Justice, 15(3), pp.209-225.
Stevens, G.P., 2016. The role of impulse control disorders in assessing criminal responsibility: medico-legal perspectives from South Africa. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23(3), pp.413-429.
Williams, J., 2015. England and Wales. In Litigating the Rights of the Child (pp. 53-69). Springer, Dordrecht.
