Lowering the age of criminal responsibility

is not wrong in itself. It is what you do with those who commit the crimes which should be under discussions.

The Northern Territory has just voted in a new government. The new government is planning on reducing the age of criminal responsibility to ten years of age. Naturally there are people opposed to this. They claim that it will do nothing to help. They say it is "racist" (because most of those caught under the law will be "aboriginal"). There are all sorts of arguments brought out claiming that this is not a good thing.

There are some things rarely mentioned. The first is that even very young children know the difference between what is right and what is wrong. It is something they can be taught. It is something they can also observe from the behaviour of those around them. Even given all the social problems in the Northern Territory I would take an educated guess that the vast majority of young trouble makers know they are doing the wrong thing...and that they can get away with it. 

The second thing worth mentioning is that juvenile records are closed.  They cannot be accessed once you are an adult. (There are some very rare exceptions to this and the alleged crime as an adult has to be very, very serious.) This surely means that children who have criminal records still have a chance to start adult life with a clean slate. They can be taught. They can learn.

And of course we give children a second chance. Children do get carried away by their companions. They do things adults would not do because they are bullied or their companions "dare" them to do something. 

In giving them that second chance we may not lock them up but we do supervise them. I see no value in locking young children away. It simply teaches them to be better criminals. 

We should expect them to apologise to any victims and make reparations. Taking some of their free time and giving them an unpleasant or boring task can be very effective. My brother and I were far from perfect. Our mother had a range of very effective punishments which involved these things - as well as some serious corporal punishment.  I am strongly opposed to the latter but the former certainly worked. (There are still occasions I remember and resent because I was not guilty of the supposed deed.) 

There is not much that can be done however if the "age of criminal responsibility" is set too high. A "telling off" will have no effect if there are no other consequences involved.  Even taking away the much loved "right" to use the swimming pool (common in some aboriginal communities) is not sufficient. A child needs to be doing something under supervision while their friends are having fun... and that "something" needs to be something they will not enjoy. I will say here however that, unless truanting is the issue, this should not involve school work. It just teaches a child to hate going to school.

 I would say here however if truanting is an issue then the child is simply told. "You didn't come to school this morning so tonight you need to do the work you did not do then." (I once kept a consistently late child in after school each afternoon for a week. I had his father's permission - indeed it was his suggestion - and that of the head to do it. He came to school on time after that.)  

There are effective ways of handling young offenders but they require time and effort and may be inconvenient for the adults around them. I had to remain in the classroom with that child, and see he did the same work as his classmates had done in the hour or so before he arrived.  It was highly inconvenient. 

Perhaps that is part of the problem. We do not want to inconvenience ourselves. It is much easier to "give them a good telling off" than actually teach them that actions have consequences they may not like.