Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Age of criminal responsibility will rise to 12

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 01 March 2009
THE age at which children can be held criminally responsible in Scotland is to be raised from eight to 12 to bring the country into line with the rest of Europe.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is to include the age increase in controversial legislation, which the SNP Government will introduce this week.

Also included will be plans to phase out jail sentences of six months or less for minor criminals, a
measure designed to ease pressure on overcrowded jails but one which has been opposed by Labour and the Conservatives.

Instead of custodial sentences for minor offenders, ministers will introduce so-called Community Payback Sentences, which will see criminals do unpaid work under supervision, seek help for drink or drug problems or take part in a programme to address their behaviour.

The decision to raise the age of criminal responsibility from eight to 12 comes after Scotland's most senior law officer, the Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, criticised the current age for being "extremely low" and argued against criminalising children.

MacAskill said: "There is no good reason for Scotland to continue to have the lowest age of criminal responsibility in Europe. Most importantly the evidence shows that prosecution at an early age increases the chance of reoffending – so this change is about preventing crime."

The change will see the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland increase beyond that of England and Wales, where it is 10.

MacAskill insisted that eight to 11-year-olds will not be "let off" as a result of the changes. "They will be held to account in a way that is appropriate for their stage of development," he said.

The Bill will also see an end to so-called "unruly certificates" which can allow 14 and 15-year-olds to be temporarily imprisoned in adult jails if they misbehave in secure accommodation.

Temporary Assistant Chief Constable Gordon MacKenzie, of Central Scotland Police and chairman of the ACPOS Youth Issues Group, has backed the move to increase the age of prosecution.

But the Tory justice spokesman Bill Aitken MSP said he was unconvinced by the move.

He said: "We will study the Scottish Government's proposals in detail, but the fact that so few under-12s have been charged shows that the current law is being applied with common sense and only in exceptional cases.

"That being so, I am not convinced that the case has been made for raising the age of criminal responsibility. Sometimes those under 12 can be involved in serious incidents and it is right that we retain the option of criminal proceedings."

The measure is just one of many changes being introduced by the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, which also includes the SNP's plans to crack-down on Scotland's alcohol culture.

Among the most controversial is the plan to scrap six-month sentences, which is likely to be supported by the Liberals and the Greens.

Richard Baker, Labour's justice spokesman, said: "We believe that 81% of people convicted of knife crime will no longer receive custodial sentences. Certain sexual offenders will escape jail, people guilty of some types of assault and housebreakers will not be sent to jail.

"This is an extremely dangerous situation. Thousands of criminals will not go to jail. We agree that more should be done to empty our jails, but this is being done without the proper investment in community sentences."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 28 February 2009 10:09 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Legal Issues
 
1

,

01/03/2009 00:20:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/03/2009 00:25:37
Melanthios, you need a new keyboard.

But honestly, you have a point. These pathetic changes to the criminal law are awful. Bleeding heart liberals are in charge. An eight or nine year old knows fine whether they are committing a crime and sometimes it will be in the public interest that they should be indicted for serious crimes. And a jail sentence, even one of twenty eight days or three months, can play a useful role in keeping a wee or big thug off the streets and give respite to a community.
3

Brian Hill,

01/03/2009 00:32:01
This measure is long overdue.

I am for anything that brings us closer to liberal Europe, what's left of it.

Long way to go though.
4

,

01/03/2009 01:13:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

,

01/03/2009 01:39:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

2Right,

On Location 01/03/2009 02:55:04
It is time he made our Courts Of Appeal more accountable.

Judges are being allowed to sit on appeals when they have already acted as Advocate Depute's.

Judges are being allowed to sit and Judge their Fathers trials when they call for Appeals
7

carrottop,

01/03/2009 08:30:35

I joined the local SNP branch to see if I could function within their party but one meeting was enough, after twenty years fighting Labour in East London I find they are one and the same.

Some young children are very aware and devious, this plays right into their hands, stupid politics.
8

thinking,

Scotland 01/03/2009 09:14:03
8 year olds understand right from wrong but receive the wrong message from soft Governments. This will encourage vandalism etc.
They should be taught responsibility at school as well as at home and appropriate punishment set for misdemeanours.
Patting them on the head and telling them they are too young to know what they are doing will make matters worse.
I know what I am talking about having fostered youngsters who were not dealt with properly when stealing etc.
It would help if an example was set by those in authority!!
9

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/03/2009 11:41:47
#7 - that is not what is being proposed.

#9 - not since 1968 have the vast majority of children under 16 been charged with offences or crimes, which is fair enough. They are dealt with through the children's hearing system.

The point of criminal responsibility for children is that sometines it is in the public interest that children capable of determining right from wrong should be indicted and tried, mostly for very serious crimes like arson and murder.

The SNP proposal is that only children aged 12 and over should face this, not children of 8 and over as is presently the case.

I think what has led us to this is a mix of simple wet liberalness, seeing young malefactors who do crimes as "victims" rather than perpetrators, to which I would say that they should be entitled to a fair trial.

Along with this goes a fear of what wet liberals in other countries will think when our ministers, social workers and academics meet their counterparts at conferences at the like. As if Greece or wherever is somehow "better" than us because their teenage murderers don't face the prospect of trial.
10

The Ayrshire Bard,

01/03/2009 11:52:24
I read the other day that Westminster has decreed that fruadsters, cheats ans those con-men who prey on the elderly will be exempt from prison. I rather suspect that this a precaution to prevent any of the bunch of pretend politicians who are themselves guilty of such crimes will not be incarcerated. Politicians are not like ordinary people. To simply wish to be one proves that you have an oversized ego and a power complex.
11

Brian Hill,

01/03/2009 12:18:00
#5 Melanthios says:

"Are you on drugs you left wing nut job."

I love it, I've been called many things but never a 'left wing nut job'. Thank you Melanthios for adding to my portfolio....

But talking about drugs....I'm the one using my name, Brian Hill, you are the one who sees himself as a Trojan Asteroid.....

Re those who say: 'at 8 years old they know exactly what they are doing'....does that mean you believe in lowering the Age of Consent, because if you are being honest with yourselves, you can't really have it both ways can you?
12

Ewan Oosami,

01/03/2009 12:56:30
Someone has to take responsibility for the acts of juveniles, if it's not the little gets themselves then it should be the parents. And they should be MADE to pay the price for their offsprings misdemeanors. Will nobody save us from these cretins called liberals and do-gooders?
13

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/03/2009 13:03:42
#11 - care to say where you read this "the other day?"

"Westminster" is a Parliament and doesn't "decree" anything any more than "Holyrood" does. It debates and agrees laws. I am not aware of any legislation going through Parliament relating to sentencing in England and Wales at the moment.

I think you read this inside your own head.
14

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/03/2009 13:05:40
#13 - you make a good point, and nothing in the proposals addresses them. I do wish people would stop attacking "do-gooders" though - I think doing good is good. Nothing in these soppy proposals will do anyone any good, however.
15

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/03/2009 13:12:28
#12 Brian, the reason why few people who comment here use their real names is that there is a group of people with extreme views who will stalk and harrass those whose comments they disagree with. Criminal activity, but it does happen.

With respect to your comment about the age of consent in relation to sexual activity, you should appreciate that this is different to the age of criminal responsibility.
16

Brian Hill,

01/03/2009 13:34:47
Fifi as a liberal left wing 'nut job' (see #5 Melanthios)I like things to be fair and even logical.

To me you can't be 'responsible' on one level and not on another, thus my question to those who say, they 'know what they are doing' therefore they should accept the consequences.

I am saying that if they do know what they are doing then the Age of Consent needs to be looked at, but equally I am asking do they really know what they are doing at that age and if they don't they should not be held criminally responsible?

In other words, to the right wing non liberal nut jobs I say, you can't have it both ways.
17

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 13:37:08
You seem to really hate children fifi. I hope you are not a mum.
18

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 13:39:15
Fifi goes on to her ''stalk and harrass'' hobby-horse again. Get real hen, if you want to put across a point of view you should be prepared to defend it. Argument is not harrassment.
19

Proximaking,

Stonehaven 01/03/2009 14:55:42
My kids are far older for their years than I ever was when I was a boy. When I was eight I knew damn well what was right and wrong. If anything with today's "street smart" kids they know even earlier what is right and what is wrong. They can't be street smart and be allowed to get away with what they do. The age of criminal responsibility of the kids I see and have contact with should be lowered to seven years old. And as they only seem to cause problems when they are allowed out again stop letting them out. We should be sending kids from dysfunctional families out to Africa for a year at a time to help them see what real life is like.

And there is a slight difference between someone smashing a car window, cost to me nil as I have insurance and some kid getting pregnant at 8 years old (which isn't possible) and expecting society to pick up the tab for the kid that results so you see I as a Nazi-liberal can have it both ways with the ages of criminal and sexual responsibility obviously enough because the probable costs to society of each are wildly different.

20

,

01/03/2009 15:32:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
21

Douglas,

Bathgate 01/03/2009 15:41:01
Run, run as fast as you can, you can't touch me I'm a twelve year old bam (as somebody nearly said once).
22

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/03/2009 15:46:31
#18 - I don't think children should get away with murder if they've murdered someone. how is that hating children?
23

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/03/2009 15:50:10
#19 - I often put forward a point of view. But I don't want malicious loonspuds tracking me down to my home and place of work to do me harm.

You may choose to act differently. I do worry that you have revealed too much about yourself and your circumstances from time to time, but that's your business, and you haven't offended as many cybernats as I have.
24

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/03/2009 15:54:10
#20 - well it is different. We have an age of criminal consent below which we accept that a child is not capable of forming mens rea or guilty intent to commit crime. The age of consent in sexual matters is not about mens rea, but rather an age below which it is unlawful for aother person to have sexual relations with him or her. These are fundamentally different situations.
25

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/03/2009 15:58:05
#19 - you make the very valid point that "argument is not harrassment." But it is clear enough that posters such as AM2 whose arguments have attracted the ire of some cybernats have suffered stalking, harrassment, and published supposed personal contact details with a view to have him subject to harrassment in the real world.
26

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/03/2009 16:06:10
#21 - remember, there is no chance that a child would be prosecuted in Scotland for a simple act of vandalism, whatever the age of criminal responsibility. Instead he or she would be dealt with through the childrens hearing system, with no trial - at most, a hearing in private before a Sheriff sitting alone. Prosecution leading to a trial in front of a jury only applies to children facing very serious crimes like murder and arson, and only where the lord advocate considers it to be in the public interest.

The debate is therefore about what age can a child form guilty intent. You and I both agree that eight is not too young. The opponents seem to believe that only little cherubs of more advanced years could possibly be so bad as to know what they were up to, and at least one thinks that to believe otherwise shows we hate children.

Aw, the nice.
27

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/03/2009 16:09:29
re #28 - I know, some pernickety cybernat will whinge that I used the term "arson" when the Scots law term is "fire-raising". Fair enough. An eight or nine year old accused of wilful fire-raising leading to death should face a trial before a jury, in my view.
28

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 01/03/2009 18:12:57
Fifi raises an interesting point:

>>remember, there is no chance that a child would be prosecuted in Scotland for a simple act of vandalism, whatever the age of criminal responsibility. Instead he or she would be dealt with through the childrens hearing system, with no trial - at most, a hearing in private before a Sheriff sitting alone. Prosecution leading to a trial in front of a jury only applies to children facing very serious crimes like murder and arson, and only where the lord advocate considers it to be in the public interest.<<

Out of interest what would have happened to the killers of Jamie Bulger if the age of criminal responsibility was 12? They couldn't have been tried or put in a young offenders institute.
29

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/03/2009 19:00:40
Actually you are right about AM2 Fifi I find the obsession with him disturbing and unhealthy. And yes he has been threatened, so I concede that point. But I don't think the parties responsible for that actually represent mainstream nationalism.

I just don't believe that an eight year old has the moral knowledge or ethical education that they need to make a decision which makes them fit to be tried as an adult. I think they are still too childish, no matter how adult they may appear. You can mimic an adults behaviour when you are eight, but I don't think you can be judged as an adult.

30 the case of Jamie Bulger's killers is exactly a case in point. These were boys who had no upbringing to speak of at all, they were exposed to chaotic lifestyles and violent imagery from the day they were born. So we take children like that and judge them as adults ? By the time you are twelve, you will have absorbed the widder values of society and can be reasonablyu expected to have understood what they are. At eight you are still too self-obsessed (as is natural) and will be aware of what you see about you, without broader horizons. I don't think it is fair to blame children for what they are born into.
30

Brian Hill,

01/03/2009 20:07:57
The trial of the Bulger Boys was a black stain on English Legal history. Everyone from the SUN (to be expected) to the Trial Judge (Totally unexpected and unwarranted)called these 11 year olds EVIL.

No, evil is when a Prime Minister whose ratings are so low in the polls there is no chance of winning the next election contrives to start a war againsts weaker opponents and when they realise they have been duped and begin to speed off home are sunk on your orders killing hundreds of young sailors and later young men on both sides during the subsequent war. THAT is EVIL.

Two boys with no upbringing whatsoever, who are both so unhappy they can even contemplate hurting a toddler never mind killing him, that's a sadness so off the wall it doesn't bear thinking about.

Putting those boys through that trial, having to face rent-a-mob on a daily basis and then spending about 10 years in prison said more about us as a society than it ever did about the killing of young Jamie.

I'm sure we could run off a dozen acts of pure evil committed by politicians around the world, and I'm not talking lunatics like Pol Pot either.
31

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/03/2009 21:05:52
#32 - the one thing that was not appalling was the trial. The evidence was presented, they were represented by able counsel, the jury gave them a fair trial, and they were convicted and sentenced according to law. The stuff about their background is irrelevant. Most criminals have some problems in their lives. That is no excuse.

#33 - They were detained in correct facilities for children - did you expect them to go to an adult prison? - are now out of custody on license, with protection for their privacy, and under supervision. That is just too.

Sure, the attitudes displayed by the media were awful, and some politicians did grandstand. but everyone saw that the consequences of murder involve punishment - children who murder, and can be proven to know what they did, will be caught and punished.

It would surely have been as immoral for them to have escaped with impunity, as it would have been for them to be detained without receiving a fair trial. And this is how the victim's interest is protected as well.



32

Brian Hill,

01/03/2009 21:48:32
#33 invictager, for someone just a tad to the right of Vlad the Impaler you are a true Christian gentleman.
33

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 09/08/2009 08:52:57
I think they should raise the age of criminal responsibility to 18. Think how many people woudn't then have to go to prison. We could hug them and give them sweeties to stop them doing bad things because they've all just had sad starts to their lives. Vote for the Scottish National Party, the Criminal's Friend.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.