Is an eleven year old responsible

for their actions? Should they be held responsible for their actions?

There is an article in this morning's paper about the proposal to raise the age of criminal responsibility from ten to twelve years. I actually read the article earlier than that. It is an area which interests me in the way it has interested anyone who has taught children of that age.

Some years ago now our state government experimented with the idea of giving all school age children "free transport". It was meant to be used to go to and from school. Good idea? It certainly sounded useful. It might get some cars off the roads in "peak" periods. It would save parents some money. Oh yes, definitely an election winner.

And what happened? There were suddenly children all over the place. It may not have been that many in percentage terms but there was a definite increase in children wandering the streets. There was an increase in graffiti and other minor forms of vandalism. The truant numbers were up, perhaps by not that much but they were still higher than usual. There was an increase in "gang" activity at a younger age. It may not have been that much more but it was noticeable. It was noticeable enough for the police to be demanding that the policy of "free" transport be disbanded.

I remember standing in the main railway station waiting to buy a new ticket and watching a woman with a Down Syndrome boy of about ten. She was watching him buy an ice cream from the kiosk. He kept looking back at her, obviously making sure he was doing the right thing. He smiled as he turned to her. He had made the purchase of an ice cream on his own. It was a big achievement for him. 

Then disaster struck. Another young boy ran past him, grabbed the ice cream and ran on. A passing policeman saw the incident but did not try to pursue the little thief. I can remember his words, "He's aboriginal. I can't touch him."

To say I was furious would be an understatement but I knew where the policeman was coming from. He could do nothing. I asked the carer of the Down Syndrome boy whether I could get him another ice cream. She agreed and I gave him the money. The man in the kiosk who had seen the whole thing went through the whole process again patiently and the policeman walked them to the platform to catch their train. "So you will be safe." (Much later the man in the kiosk refused to take my money for a small carton of milk.)

That ten or eleven year old thief knew exactly what he was doing. He knew he was "aboriginal" and too young for the police to do much even if he was caught. He knew that if he appeared in the Children's Court he would get nothing more than a telling off.  Even if he had never done anything like that before he would know from others that any "social worker"or "youth worker" would be so overworked they would not have time for a "minor offence" like that.

But it was a major offence in the life of that Down Syndrome child. It is one he would not forget. He was the victim of a particularly nasty crime. No, there was not much money involved. There was very little violence. The problem was that it was the first time in his life he had tried to buy something independently. It was a huge step forward for him.

I wonder where the young thief is now. It would not surprise me to learn he was in prison or that he had been in prison or that he is not in paid employment. He needed to be caught and, the next time he had money of his own, he needed to be made to hand over the price of the ice cream to the other boy. He needed to be told there are consequences to actions.

The age of criminal responsibility can stay at ten as far as I am concerned. We just need to find ways of handling the offenders that show them there are consequences without bringing them into contact with other young offenders. The problem is that it takes resources we do not currently have.