Criminal Liability Age in the United Kingdom - Research Paper Example

Criminal Liability Age Dar Al Hekma University School of Business and Law Law Department Criminal Liability Age Introduction For an individual to be held responsible for his wrong act then it is necessary that he is able to know the difference between what is right and wrong. The law has been able to identify this in law so that it will able to responsibly know what it will undertake. As it is currently, children in Wales and England who are below the age of 10 cannot be held criminally responsible. Even those who are of the age between 14 and 17 the penalties are not similar to those of the adults. A perpetrator to be able to differentiate the wrong from the right need to be at a certain age (Bovens, 2007). The law as indicated that children who ae below ten as those who will not be able to differentiate between what is right and wrong. However some countries in Europe have increased the gap to 14 and some 16. All these will depend on how the jurisdiction is administered in various countries. However when it comes to acts that are concerned with sentences of the minors, most of them of them are concerned with custodial fines and sentence. However, custodial sentence is the last resort that is used for people under 18 years. Statistics from government agencies have indicated that it is only about a 3% of those minors who commit crime that are placed under custodial sentence (Davydenko & Franks, 2008). The alternative to this two types of sentences the community sentence serves better for most of the minor offenders. Some of the community sentences have the punishments like child safety orders and curfew schemes meant to correct them. Children that are below the age of ten have no required capacity to be convicted with criminal acts or even bae the responsibility under criminal liability. They can also not be in a position of defending themselves in the court of law. However depending on the jurisdiction there is a level of responsibility. The differences that appear in the legal systems across Europe are some of the things that should be know and keenly be studied. Children should be made fully aware of the effects in case they do any wrong. There is a difference of criminal liability in Europe is somehow different from that of the United Kingdom. Central research questions The main research questions used in this study will determine the outcome to a great extent. It is therefore important to ensure that the question to a great extent is covering all the areas that meant to ensure that the information extracted out of them is complete. The basic question in this study is the criminal liability that arises from the different ages in the society. Also the questions should establish the liability that one bares in regard to his criminal liability in the United Kingdom. In this study I sort to understand the differences that exist between the different ages of minors. The following are the questions that were used in the study. What are some of the criminal liability ages differences in the United Kingdom? To what extent do they differ? What are some of the reasons that make different states to have s differing criminal liability? What is the difference that exists between the criminal liabilities in United Kingdom as compared to that in other European countries? In what way does criminal liability develop in relation to age in United Kingdom? What are some of the common criminal liabilities that exist across Europe compared to those in the United Kingdom? Is there a possibility of having a common criminal liability frame across all countries in Europe? Research aims To ensure that the research was focused and comprehensive, objectives of the study had to be developed. The following are the objectives of the study. To understand how various liabilities on a person are determined? To be able to know what some of the differences in liability are that exist in different ages in United Kingdom. To be able to determine the reasons as to why some of the criminal liability differ along with ages in the United Kingdom. To be able to estimate what is the possibility that there will be change in the criminal liability in the United Kingdom. Literature review According to Eck & Weisburd, 2015, there is different criminal liability that moves across the ages between 10 to 16 years. It is through this age that the child will be held liable to any wrong doing that he commits. There must be reasonable prove that the child can be able to reason out whether he/she has done wrong. There has been different views regarding the commitment of criminal acts by children this has generated different reactions from the public. Statistics have indicated that over 3000 cases have been reported in the period of 10 years for children who are aged below 10. However, in the same period of time, there have been more than 13000 crimes that have been committed in these country (Fazel & Grann, 2006). Of these cases, 60 of these are said to be cases that have been committed by children that are related to sex offences. People in different countries have a feeling that the criminal liability of children and their age should be increased. They argue that the current age that has been set to determine criminal liability is very low (Ogden et al. 2014). There has been recommendations that the age of 10 should be raised to 14 when the child has started to learn on how to take some responsibilities. They also consider that children who are below this age are under care of parents that they cannot do anything on their own. Also, the government has been asking for the opinion as to whether the criminal liability for these children can be increased. However, regardless of these wide opinions, the ministry of justice has not given in to the idea that a child of 10 years cannot differentiate between rights and wrong (Nutt, King & Phillips, 2010). Many of the acts are associated with custodial sentence and fine but the custodial sentence for the people under 18 years can be used as the last resort. Considering the government statistics around 3% of the young offenders committing receive custodial sentence (Davydenko & Franks, 2008). Alternatively, other community sentences are employed for the young offenders. These community sentences can include curfew schemes and child safety orders. The children below the age of ten have no capacity to be convicted of any criminal act as they are below the recommended age set for criminal liability. The different states in the United Kingdom have different ages that are considered sustainable for criminal liability. The sharp difference on the age that criminal responsibility is a observed in the case where a pair of 10 year old killed a two year old James Bulger in the year 1993 in the United Kingdom led to rising of a public debate on the issue of child criminality (Turner 1994, Heide 1999, p. 25; JUSTICE 1996, pp. 1–2). However, due to the sensitive nature of the case, the convictions for murder and the trials of the boys tuned out to be a subject matter in courts. The 11 year old boys were subjected to appeals of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of V v. United Kingdom and T v. United Kingdom and on December 16th 1999 the case was decided. The Court ruled that there was no human right that had been violated due to the fact that the criminal responsibility in both England and Wales is applied at a minimum age of 10 years and that had no difference from the European practices of the human right standards. Regardless of the observation that was made by this court, it found out that the fair trial for the boys had been compromised to some extent. The establishment was due to the insufficient measures that had been undertaken in ensuring that the boys had adequately understood everything in participating their legal proceedings (Di Martino 2000; Hubble 2000). Another case of manslaughter was launched in New South Wales in the year 1999. An 11 year old boy was being prosecuted for throwing his friend who was six years old into a river. The cases had attracted different comments that were widespread from different quarters. Politicians, the public, and judges had mixed views regarding the whole case (SMH, 1999). Due to this, the New South Wales Attorney-General’s Department was necessitated to undertake review in regard to the age that minors should be able to take criminal responsibility (NSW CLRD 1999). Another case that was related to a minor occurred in the Michigan elementary school. In this case, during the march 2000, a six year old shot dead a six year old classmate (Riley 2000). Also, sharp reactions from different quarters were raised regarding the case. Such disturbing cases have been observed in the context of juvenile criminality. There have been disagreements about the criminal responsibility in children. Most of the prosecutions for children that have occurred in the United Kingdom have had a fair share of criticism. Though some have been capital offenses, there have been arguments that some of the children do not understand what they have gotten themselves into (Mukherjee, Carcach & Higgins 1997, p. 12). Sometimes there has been arguments that some children are committing offenses when they are in groups or adults. This becomes difficult for the prosecution to determine whether they real understand what they had caused or not. What complicates such cases even further, is that there is anecdotal evidence that enables us see the deliberate use of children to get into crime and for the adults to get away with their crimes (Bell & Heathcote 1999, p. 4). Methodology Due to the fact that there was no numerical data that was required, the descriptive research design was employed so that it could give various descriptions that were observed in different phenomenon. The method was used to help us understand the research findings within the study. Most of the data that was collected was from the library as it was the major source of the data that was used in the research study. Some of other materials that were used as secondary data include; magazines, journals, and internet sources. All these were used to compliment the primary sources. They were used to further explain areas that were not well understood. The use secondary data sources that include journals, magazines, and internet sources, alongside some primary sources such as case notes to support the argument and further explain it was very necessary to ensure that everything was well understood. To ensure that all the objectives are well studied, and then an internet survey was conducted with consideration of the past research documents that have been considered. The two approaches basically qualitative consideration depending on the situation in context. Data analysis has been undertaken to ensure that the results give the true picture of what is under consideration. From the previous literature reviews, some supportive information was considered to ensure that new concepts are brought on board. Research design is going to take an approach that is compatible to the nature of the study. Data collection methods chosen will be such a way that they easily capture all the information needed. Findings and Discussions In United Kingdom like most of the European countries, the minimum criminal responsibility age statutory is 10 years. Also, the ages between 10 and 14 are said to be rebuttable presumption (doli incapax) in operation; this means that they are not in a position of committing a crime on their own. The responsibility of proving the child otherwise heavily relies with the prosecution. They must prove that at the time of committing the crime the child was able to distinguish between what was right and wrong, and also he/she must prove that the minor can be in a position of contesting trial results in case of conviction. Those who are between the ages of 14 to 17 can be subjected to criminal responsibility depending on the jurisdiction. However, the young offenders may be subjected to different sanctions that are different from those of the adults (Warner, 1997). Though the minors may not have committed an act of criminality, the courts may order that matters of welfare for the children ae taken into consideration in ensuring that everything is on the right track in their lives. The measures that can be undertaken include the following; care and control of the children, orders that may relate to the residence of the children, contact between the children and the society, and assessment and supervision of the children. Therefore this proves that criminal prosecution is only undertaken on the part of those factors that are societal response that range to youthful wrong doing. This undertakings can take place in the case where the youth has been repetitive in his acts and responses and when the matter is sufficiently serious. Also, courts may decide that the education environment and family corrections are not sufficient resulting to such restriction for the minor. Such situations may require specialized developed institutions and advanced processes meant to deal with the young offenders specifically that of the children’s courts. This undertakings are to ensure that children’s welfare is well taken care of to ensure that reforms and other retributive concerns are taken care of has been premised as much on (Seymour 1988, 1997; Cunneen & White 1995). Such disturbing cases have been observed in the context of juvenile criminality. There have been disagreements about the criminal responsibility in children. Most of the prosecutions for children that have occurred in the United Kingdom have had a fair share of criticism. Though some have been capital offenses, there have been arguments that some of the children do not understand what they have gotten themselves into (Mukherjee, Carcach & Higgins 1997, p. 12). Sometimes there has been arguments that some children are committing offenses when they are in groups or adults. This becomes difficult for the prosecution to determine whether they real understand what they had caused or not. What complicates such cases even further, is that there is anecdotal evidence that enables us see the deliberate use of children to get into crime and for the adults to get away with their crimes (Bell & Heathcote 1999, p. 4). Many of the acts are associated with custodial sentence and fine but the custodial sentence for the people under 18 years can be used as the last resort. Considering the government statistics around 3% of the young offenders committing receive custodial sentence (Davydenko & Franks, 2008). Alternatively, other community sentences are employed for the young offenders. These community sentences can include curfew schemes and child safety orders. The children below the age of ten have no capacity to be convicted of any criminal act as they are below the recommended age set for criminal liability. The different states in the United Kingdom have different ages that are considered sustainable for criminal liability. However, the most preferred approaches to ensure that the whole criminal justice system fits the required rehabilitation and also prevention of further commitment of those acts then the system should avoid being simple punitive and concentrate on complete transformation (O’Connor 1997). It may be observed that the United Kingdom justice system is much concentrate on giving out justice compared to that of welfare policies. This may be argued differently depending on the People in different countries have a feeling that the criminal liability of children and their age should be increased. They argue that the current age that has been set to determine criminal liability is very low (Ogden et al. 2014). There has been recommendations that the age of 10 should be raised to 14 when the child has started to learn on how to take some responsibilities. They also consider that children who are below this age are under care of parents that they cannot do anything on their own. Also, the government has been asking for the opinion as to whether the criminal liability for these children can be increased. However, regardless of these wide opinions, the ministry of justice has not given in to the idea that a child of 10 years cannot differentiate between rights and wrong (Nutt, King & Phillips, 2010). Conclusion and Recommendation Criminal responsibility should be for those individuals who do understand the whole system of justice system. Where minors have been involved in criminal acts, then it should be proved beyond reasonable doubts that no influence was on him/her before prosecution. However, it is best that measure that will ensure correction of the children are undertaken instead of having a punitive nature of system that will not help the child in the long run. Families and society at large should take a collective responsibility to ensure that all those children who have committed crime are handled with care to ensure that they get to understand that what they did was wrong. The justice system should not only concentrate on delivery of just but also ensure that in case there is an individual who has committed crime there are welfare policies to assist him/ her correct his/her mistakes. The general perception about prosecution of minors is that the whole process should be undertaken at that particular time that he/she understands what the law requires and he is able to defend him/her self in the court of justice. Recommendations In the future the researches that will be undertaken should involve the justice system in other countries. This will ensure that there is a wide understanding of the justice system. References Bell, D. & Heathcote, B. 1999, “Gangs and kinship: Gang organization amongst contemporary Indigenous culture in Western Australia”, paper presented at the Children and Crime: Victims and Offenders conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology, Brisbane. Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework1. European law journal, 13(4), 447-468. Davydenko, S. A., & Franks, J. R. (2008). Do bankruptcy codes matter? A study of defaults in France, Germany, and the UK. The Journal of Finance, 63(2), 565-608. Di Martino, K. 2000, “Children who kill are entitled to a fair trial! The Bulger case revisited”, Juvenile Justice Worldwide, Spring 2000, no. 1. Eck, J. E., & Weisburd, D. L. (2015). Crime places in crime theory. Crime and place: Crime prevention studies, 4. Fazel, S., & Grann, M. (2006). The population impact of severe mental illness on violent crime. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(8), 1397-1403. Hubble, G. 2000, “Juvenile defendants: Taking the human rights of children seriously”, Alternative Law Journal, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 116–120. Mukherjee, S., Carcach, C. & Higgins, K. 1997, “Juvenile crime and justice”, Research and Public Policy Series, no. 11, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra. Nutt, D. J., King, L. A., & Phillips, L. D. (2010). Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis. The Lancet, 376(9752), 1558-1565. New South Wales Attorney-General’s Department, Criminal Law Review Division (CLRD) 1999, and “A review of the law on the age of criminal responsibility of children”, discussion paper, Sydney (available at www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/clrd). Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Kit, B. K., & Flegal, K. M. (2014). Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United States, 2011-2012. Jama, 311(8), 806-814 O’Connor, I. 1997, “Models of juvenile justice”, in Borowski, A. & O’Connor, I. (eds.), Juvenile Crime, Justice and Corrections, Longman, Sydney, pp. 229–53. Riley, M. 2000, “’I am not your friend,’ the little boy said…then he shot her”, Sydney Morning Herald, 2 March 2000, p. 1. Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) 2000, “Children and criminality” (editorial). Read More