Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dave.m]

What do you think should be the age when juveniles can be tried and sent to prison?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7053482.stm

I asked the question so I will start.....

I think 16
BUT
with the proviso that parents or guardians are held responsible for any crimes committed by under 16s in their care, and made to stand trial and serve any punishment that would be meted out to anyone older who had committed the same crime.
AND
Also made to recompense others who have been at the receiving end of any vandalism.

Right, let's have your opinions or experiences of juvenile crime!

dave


 

[Pwiggler]

i read that particular story earlier and think its so sad this poor bloke died under such disgusting circumstances.

the boys involved shouldnt be sent to prison, they should be locked in a room with that poor blokes family to let them do whatever they want to them .... WHATEVER !

i think anyone over the age of 12 should be able to go to prison, depending on the crime of course.

[fudgem]

I think the parents of all these children should be prosecuted for neglecting their parental responsibilities.  What sort of upbringing must they have had to think it funny to throw stones and bricks at another human being?

Of course, they aren't really being sent to prison are they?  but to some sort of establishment run by social workers, from which they will probably
emerge fully fledged criminals.  If they were sent to a boot camp type of place, they might learn a bit of discipline and self respect, and recognise the error of their ways.

I'm not holding my breath for either of the above suggestions

[roseway]

I'm really not happy about making the parents responsible. Parenting is one of the most difficult jobs in the world, and it's made more difficult by the way society nannies children so that parents can't discipline them without being prosecuted themselves. Schools likewise have very limited disciplinary rights. If you're unlucky enough to have a wild kid who associates with other wild kids, you don't stand much chance of controlling their behaviour.

I believe that society needs to change in a way that makes children face the responsibilities of their wrongdoing. Patting them on the head and blaming the parents is never going to turn them into good citizens. Parents have a responsibility to make behavioural boundaries clear, but they have to have meaningful sanctions to enforce those rules when necessary.

[Achilles Last Stand]

A stint in the Services wouldn't hurt young offenders IMO - and a lot of older ones come to that!

[guest]

I'm not sure you can have a sensible discussion on this as we have a criminal justice system which really isn't fit for purpose - but I'd best not go off down that road or you'll never shut me up

If you are asking about the point at which a child should know (or at least strongly suspect) that what they're doing is illegal I'd say 10 is about right unless their IQ is seriously below normal. If you are asking at what age they should be detained that's a different matter.

[kitz]

Sometimes I do think kids need a good hard sharp shot treatment.   Theres too many that think they can (and do) get away with anything..  and think they are beyound the arms of the law.

A tough call to make - but I do sometimes think that sometimes the law is too soft.

[Floydoid]

Now they are debating whether prison officers should be allowed to use batons in YOI's... it's my opinion that once inside the youngsters should expect it to be tough, even if for some of them it's the closest thing they get to a holiday... prison should not be a holiday camp.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7054605.stm

[guest]

Firstly let me say I have a criminal record - possession of 0.67g of cannabis (grass, not hash so not even enough for one joint) when I was 19. I was fined £120 in 1987 for that. I am therefore somewhat biased in this matter.

In theory that record no longer exists (rehabilitation of offenders act) but in practice if someone does an enhanced criminal records check on me then it WILL appear. I also have a security clearance of Secret UK Eyes A (in theory I can see cabinet papers - that sort of level). Had my conviction happened in 2007 rather than 1987 my life would have been VERY different.

Now here's the employers own figures (2006) :

25% of employers throw your CV in the bin instantly if you have any conviction;
45% of employers throw your CV in the bin instantly if you have been to prison;
60% of employers throw your CV in the bin instantly if you went to prison for an offence involving dishonesty;
80% of employers throw your CV in the bin instantly if you went to prison for an offence involving dishonesty and violence.

Now you may think "serves them right" - god knows papers like the Daily Hate* (Daily Mail) do. Think a little further and you'll see that someone exiting prison for the first time is stuffed. Roughly 50% of employers will NEVER look at you again. You get a grant of £40 when you walk out and that's it. No benefits until you have an address, which you can't get without cash - a hell of a lot more than £40. Its not rocket science is it?

England is following the USA again on this. The USA locks up and executes more people per head of population than EVERY OTHER "democratic" country on the planet put together. Even if you add China they're still the worst. Works for them does it? Well it certainly doesn't work for California which now spends more on locking people up than all of the other public expenditure (education, health, transport etc etc) put together.

Prison REALLY doesn't work. Not the UK/US versions anyway. Other EU countries have reoffending rates that are one quarter of ours.

I think everyone has an opinion on this but unfortunately it is the people who have no experience of crime/criminal justice systems who shout the loudest and are most ill-informed. I am not referring to anyone on this thread but I'm sure we all know some idiot who reckons that the police taking someone round the back and giving them a good kicking is the way to go? I've seen it happen to a 14 year old friend and all it did to us is make us distrust and despise the police. I still do.

Edit - before someone asks I tell my children that policemen are NOT their friends, they are there to arrest people (dunno about the rest of you but Leics police get a £1000 bonus for meeting their arrest quota - if you don't find that scary then I give up). I teach them to treat people with respect - even the police - and to treat people as they would wish other people to treat them. It works for me

*I refer to a quote from the founder of the Daily Mail - "You must give the people something to hate each and every day"

[Floydoid]

My views have changed on this matter since the time (a few years ago) when I found myself on the wrong side of the criminal justice system... something I'm not proud of, but having seen things from the 'other side' has somewhat opened my eyes to the kind of cranky society we live in.

[guest]

Well Floydoid I think the issue really boils down to this :

a) do you simply wish to punish people or;

b) do you wish to rehabilitate them so they aren't likely to reoffend?

In the UK and US a) rules. In Europe b) does.

Perhaps people should do some reading of how European (I'd suggest Sweden and Norway) countries who have systems close to ours deal with this?

[Floydoid]

I'd go for rehabilitation... custodial sentences for non-violent offences are just a waste of time and money and do nothing for your personal esteem.  Paying something back to society I think would be far more effective.

[dave.m]

Some very interesting replies but my question was about the age of criminal responsibility and what age do you think it should be.


How would you deal with anyone under your suggested age who commits a crime?

dave

[guest]

I genuinely don't know. It's not something I've looked into much - perhaps I should. I suspect that what happens to them now is largely determined by their postcode and how much funding the local authority has.

I know what'd happen to our kids at home but that's not what you're asking.

[UncleUB]

I think all discipline went out of kids when we banned caning in schools.even parents aren,t allowed to smack kids now.The kids of today know that when they do wrong all they get is a telling off so it doesn.t stop them.All this "Can't be named for legal reasons",is total rubbish.Name and shame them in newspapers,public places etc.Make parents pay for any criminal damage they cause.We are in a society of wanting to claim and sue somebody for nothing.Eg,kid falls of climbing frame in school,grazes knee, parents want to sue!!Teachers are a bag of nerves,no wonder they don't do school trips.
 Bottom line is,If they do wrong they should be punished nomatter how old they are.