The age of criminal responsibility

in this state is ten years. It varies across the country. 

Now there is talk of raising it to fourteen years in this state. The Greens are actually demanding it be done. 

Their view is that ten year old children do not really know the difference between "right" and "wrong". They are arguing children should not have to face court for the offences they have committed until they are fourteen. 

This is the same party who want to give sixteen year old adolescents the vote. Not old enough to face the consequences of your actions until you are fourteen but old enough to vote two years later?

I am opposed to these things. Many other people I know are also opposed. I am also concerned that the Greens may succeed in getting what they want. They may have very few seats in parliament but they wield a lot of power - far too much power. It is one of the consequences of our voting system...a not very democratic one.

Knowing right from wrong is something that develops long before age fourteen, indeed before age ten. It is quite possible for a three year old to know the toy they have snatched does not belong to them and that there will be consequences if it is not handed back. Why should it be any different for a ten year old?

It  used to be considered that up until around ten years of age children were guided in the more abstract ideas of "right" and "wrong" by their parents. Now it is more likely that they will be guided by childcare workers and teachers because many parents have at least partially abrogated their parenting responsibilities. Ideas about right and wrong and "fairness" and much more are supposedly being instilled in the very young from the time they are verbal. 

I have not done any searching but my guess is that children now have a better understanding of what is considered right and wrong at a lower rather than a higher age. It may not suggest we should actually lower the age of criminal responsibility. It does suggest that we might consider retaining it at ten.

Criminal records of children are closed. There is even the possibility that no conviction would be recorded at all. I don't think the idea of "reformatories" are at all helpful. They should be the absolute last result for those actually convicted of the most violent of crimes. 

What we do need are ways of curtailing the freedom of some young offenders. We need to ensure they are not roaming the streets late at night and more. That's hard.

We also need much more serious consequences for the adults who involve children in their own criminal activities. The adult who uses the child as a drug courier needs to be dealt with even more harshly than other drug dealers.

Raising the age of criminal responsibility may just increase the problems. Those who abuse children in this way will simply have longer to train them. If they don't have to face the consequences until fourteen or more then it may simply be too late for even more of them.