Children Should Publish The Names Of Children Who Commit Serious Crimes

The processing of these crimes help to embed the key of legal knowledge in the mind of a child hoping to shape their future actions. NSW age of criminal responsibility is defined by statute as 10 years of age, which is recognised in Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW). Meaning that a child under 10 years of age cannot be charged for a crime. The basis of this is the recognition of the immaturity and exposure of children and their inability to form the requisite criminal intent known as mens

Young offenders are recognised under the law to have a different level of responsibility and vulnerability to adult offenders. This creates tension in the community, as when children are not protected in criminal procedures, their rights are not upheld. This is demonstrated in R V Phung and Huynh [2001] NSWSC 115, where the accused was detained without the contact of his guardian of choice for over several hours, was not consulted on whom he preferred as a support person and was not given a lawyer. This creates tension as the child did not receive the criteria assigned under the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW) and was without a legal representative, defying the fairness of his case. However, the judge deemed the evidence provided from interviews as inadmissible due to his rights being denied. The courts attempt to prevent the tension from the community by using the judge’s discretion in determining what evidence is

Adult decisions should have adult consequence many minors don’t think about their actions and how it affects others around them. According to

Children have a long standing history in crimes. Some are cold blooded killers and some have real mental issues we have no idea they have. Children have been in crime since the 1900s. Currently in the united states there are thousands of children coming into jail everyday for murder, homicide, or any other particular crime. One source states that, “Currently an estimated 250,000 youth are tried, sentenced, or incarcerated as adults every year across the

Doli Incapax however, doesn’t end once a young person reaches the age of 10. From the ages of 10-14 it is a common law presumption that a minor does not possess the necessary knowledge to have a criminal intention. This is known as a rebuttable presumption. This presumption lies in favour of the young person just as if they were under the age of 10, however, the other party can rebut it if they are able to show sufficient evidence to disprove this. This can be done a fair few ways. One of the ways to rebut Doli Incapax is by looking at the young persons criminal record. Previous offences that are linked to the present offence (e.g. robbery and assault) can be used to rebut Doli Incapax. Another way to rebut Doli Incapax is by interviewing the young person. This must be done so however, in the presence of an adult, if it not, the evidence may be inadmissible in court. The interview process will involve a police officer questioning the juvenile about their knowledge of the offence. If the juvenile admits they were aware that the offence was a criminal matter, Doli Incapax is rebutted. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) supports this idea of the age of criminal responsibility and Australia has ratified legislations proposed referring to this idea. The Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) lays out the minimum age of criminal responsibility, although there are occasional debates within the public to reduce this age. Doli Incapax is

Currently each state and territory in Australia has its own individual legislation concerning juvenile crime. All state and territory laws do not conform to the Conventions on the Right of the Child and it is crucial that these laws are amended to better protect juveniles. The most effective reform that could be made is for each state and territory to amend their individual legislations to increase the minimum age to be criminally responsible from 10 to 12 with the doli incapax doctrine still being applied. Although it has been acknowledged that under the common law doctrine doli incapax, children between 10 and 14 are only criminally responsible if the individual is mature enough to realise the consequences of their actions, this assessment is left to the judge, often without expert knowledge from a phycologist (Amnesty International, 2015). Furthermore, it is crucial for Queensland to raise their maximum age from 17 to 18. This amendment will allow Australia to keep up with international standards while reducing Aboriginal crime in areas where crime rates are

Today?s legal system states that children between the ages two to six should not be held liable for criminal actions. There are several developmental characteristics that support this claim. These characteristics come from biological, cognitive, and psychosocial areas. For those who are religious, one can also find spiritual support in Scripture that validates young children cannot reason as older children or adults can. Until a child?s brain matures, it is likely that a child may act impulsively and could commit a crime without reasoning beforehand that he or she

The reservation of the Convention on the Rights of a Child (CROC) had played invaluable role in charging the way in which young offenders are dealt with within the Australia Criminal Process. Including the introduction of the theory known as Doli Incapax meaning the age of criminal reasonability, the Young Offender Act 1997 NSW as well new law regarding the rights of a child once they have been arrested. It is evident that these while some of charges are still ineffective in dealing with Young Offenders within the Criminal Justice System the majority of them are in place for the greater good and are assisting young offenders when it relates to the Criminal Justice System.

This essay will look to explore and discuss the minimum age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales and see if the minimum age should be brought into line with the rest of Europe or not. The first thing to look at is the current age of criminal responsibility which is set at 10 years of age. (https://www.gov.uk/age-of-criminal-responsibility). Looking at the law, the age of 10 seems to have been chosen on numerical grounds and belief that crime becomes too popular at the age of eleven. This was despite recommendation from the penal reform international which argued that children under 12 should not be punished and the age should be increased, with a potential rise to fourteen. (http://www.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/justice-for-children-briefing-4-v6-web_0.pdf). In recent years the boldness and humour towards young offenders is high, due to an extensive public awareness of growth around youth crime and the death of James Bulger by Robert Thompson and Jon Venable, who were 10 at the time of the killing.

Children should be charged with the same sentence as adults, even though they are young they still commented a serious crime to point where they must be punished for it in a proper way,not in a lesser punish due to age.

Due to negative aspects that were presented in cases such as the Corey Davis case, the effectiveness of the Australian Legal System in accomplishing justice began to be viewed to demonstrate flaws in certain occasions by the Australian public. The Australian legal system aims to achieve equality and fairness towards the citizens of Australia to avoid anarchy within the nation. This is accomplished by set rules and laws that are created by the government. However, if these rules and laws are to be broken by an individual or a group of people living within the borders of the country, they may face legal consequences that include getting a fine, imprisonment, a life sentence or in some occurrences, a combination of these forms of punishment. In the Corey Davis case, an eleven year old boy that is identified as ‘W’ is sent to trial for committing an offence towards a six year old boy. An outline of the events in the Corey Davis case will be further explored as well as the involvement of the police, the conduct of the court system throughout the investigation of the case and its influence in achieving justice, and a summary of the trial. Furthermore, the debate about the current age limit for doli incapax and whether it is appropriate for modern society will be discussed as the Corey Davis case raised arguments about this topic. The Australian legal system aims to achieve justice, however certain instances such as the Corey Davis case have proved that it may occasionally

It can be extremely difficult at times to provided appropriate and effective legal mechanisms in the area of age of criminal responsibility – that being the important transition from childhood innocence into the maturity and true responsibility that arises in adulthood and its association with the Australian criminal law. In order to deal with the grey area of age of criminal responsibility there are multiple specialised institutions such as the Children’s Court and juvenile detention centres. There have also been significant manipulations to particular pieces of legislation of the criminal justice system in order to clearly differentiate the legal rules of children and adolescents from that of legitimate adults.

The article “Kids Are Kids - Until They Commit Crimes” is about how kids and adults are treated differently in many occasions. But when it comes down to jail, the difference between both is challenged. The article talks about how kids have similar punishments as adults. Actually, they are so eager to call these kids adults, because the bigger the crime then they are going to want to trial them as an adult. Some disagree that kids that do crimes should not be treated as an adult because they are just kids. But some also say that they should be trialed as an adult because like the saying goes “if kids want to be treated as an adult and act like one then they will be treated as one including the consequences.”

As more minors are committing violent crimes, the question of whether they should be tried as adults has arisen. Children as young as 13 or 14 are committing violent crimes such as murder, rape, and armed robbery. Some of these children are being tried as adults while others are being tried as juveniles and receiving milder punishments. A juvenile offender may receive a few years in a juvenile detention facility and possibly probation following his release at age eighteen. An adult committing the same violent crime will receive a much harsher penalty, often years in jail, possibly a life sentence, with little or no chance of parole. The only difference between the two offenders is the age at which they committed the crime. Juveniles over

Many young adolescents who have committed horrendous crimes have been a huge topic amongst the Supreme Court. Whether young adolescents are viewed as innocent, naive children to the public, this not changed the fact they can commit brutal crimes. In spite of the fact that adolescents have committed brutal crimes such as murder, one needs to understand that their brains are not as fully developed as an adult brain would be. Adolescents should not be trialed to a life sentence or attend adult prisons; however, they should be punished for their actions and undergo rehabilitation programs to help them be prepared to fit in with the rest of society.