Raise age of criminality, children's commissioner says

Raise age of criminality, children's commissioner says

news.bbc.co.uk

The age of criminal responsibility should be raised from 10 to 12, says England's children's commissioner.

Maggie Atkinson said the killers of James Bulger should have undergone "programmes" to help turn their lives around, rather than being prosecuted.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk
news.bbc.co.uk

This article suggests that the Childrens Commissioner wishes to change the law, and within the article she is quoted as saying that Venables and Thompson, the murderers of James Bulger, should not have been tried as adults. She goes further, in saying that politicians should not let the opinions of the victims families alter thier attitudes toward harsher treatment of young offenders.
I have to say, Im thorougly disgusted by this, as it shows a complete lack of regard for the victim (the ONLY important party) and thier families. Thoughts please?

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

It's a difficult balancing act. you cant have the law being influenced by the victims family. If that were the case we would have the death penalty. Its clear that Venables has not been rehabilitated, whether its possible to rehabilitate someone like that is another question. I dont have all the answers but, I dont believe in the death penatly, especially for children.

There must be a more succesful way of trying to rehabilitate a child?

This geezer is probably a two faced killer(the police commissioner), just as bad as those. you will find to be in that position of police he probably is a real killer.

So he is a killer, and real one who knows his actions kill and destroy lifes. These police are absolute scum, and then they talk about this sort of stuff.

Police you will find organize so many crimes, and oh no they can talk about people not committing crimes.

Two faced scum murderers is all the police have, and always will. Animals.

I think the danger with this is we already have a culture in some areas of " I am under 16 the cops can't touch me, my parents,teachers or any other authority figure is not allowed to disaplin me"

Raising the age just adds to that even more.

When I was 10 I deffinetly knew the differance of right and wrong, I doubt I follow understood the consequnces of my actions but I knew not to steal, hurt people or damage other peoples property.

Also not taking the victim(s) or families of the victim(s) opinions into account means that the courts would not be able to cauge the impact of the crime that was commited.

Its odd that in the UK the criminals often have more rights than there victims

[edit on 13-3-2010 by jpmail]

reply to post by jpmail


My personal angle on this , is that no matter the psychopathology, any person who could do something this terrible, deserves to have his rights taken from him, all of them. His right to liberty, and his right to his very life. I have LIVED the effects of the "you can't touch me" society that young offenders partake of. I was a victim of serious abuse by other children when I was young, and nothing was ever done. If those things had occured now, then the people responsible would have been up for assault charges, bordering on attempted murder. If I havent seen fit to go round murdering people, even though I have been abused and have suffered, then NO ONE has an excuse. I know that Venables and Thompson both had disturbed upbringings, and of course this has a baring on thier actions, but heres the thing. I do not care. I had to overcome my conditioning, I had to ignore my suffering and get the hell on with it. If I can do it, then any one can, and not doing so is a willful and evil CHOICE. Wether one makes that choice at the age of 8 or 18 is in my opinion imaterial. All that matters is wether or not victims and thier families get justice, real justice. Life must mean life, and justice must stop protecting people who would gladly cover this land in blood and mayhem , just for kicks.