Category: Age of Responsibility

This chapter outlines the reasons for, and against, the minimum age of criminal responsibility. While there is no dispute that children do need to be held accountable for their actions whether it be criminally or just in general, it is important to note that some think a child should not be criminalized regardless of the crime they commit. Children are not held to the same degree of accountability as adults, and that is reflected in their sentencing procedure. Children may not be held to the same standard as adults but that does not mean that youth offenders should be able to walk free if they have committed a crime. In recent history, there have been numerous under 18’s who have murdered in brutal and grotesque ways and to expect them to be able to walk free is ignorant – there must be something that holds them accountable and allows for them to be punished. However, on the other hand, there was already a system in place that worked with the legal system and that worked perfectly fine – it was only implemented under a government who was trying to crack down on youth crime. Also, there have been numerous attempts to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

When a child under 18 commits a crime, they are not treated the same as an adult who commits the same crime. The process for a child is focused more on making sure they understand what is happening in regard to their charge and the forthcoming trial. For example, during a trial the young defendant does not have to be in the courtroom and instead can provide their testimony through a live link – similar to child witnesses. They also have to go through a youth court before possibly being tried in a Crown Court and additional steps are taken to ensure the child defendant fully understands their trial . There are special sentences that are only allowed for youth offenders, these are categorised into three sections: community sentences, immediate custody and other sentences.

Community sentences are the most popular sentence to give a youth offender , it avoids sending them to a prison or a home which causes the least amount of stress on the child. Community sentences include referral orders, reparation orders and youth rehabilitation orders. The focus of community sentences is restoration, reparation and reintegration , they are to help the child and change their ways – they realise where they are going wrong. A referral order can be issued to a child and consists of the child being referred to a youth offender panel with a parent – this can last from three months to one year. These orders are generally given to first time offenders who plead guilty to their charge , they incorporate restorative and rehabilitative elements. If the judge does not find a referral order as appropriate, they may be given a reparation order which is what it suggests – the defendant has to compensate for the harm they have done, may it be through monetary compensation or fixing damaged property. The reparation order can relate to either the victim/someone else who is affected or to the community as a whole – whomever it is, has to give consent to the order being placed. This sentence can only be given to someone who is not being sentenced to a custodial sentence or a youth rehabilitation order . These orders are given to make the child understand and witness the effect their crimes have had on others. The final community sentence is a youth rehabilitation order. These last up to three years and include requirements as their sentence. Those requirements include mental health treatment, residence requirement (living in a home), education requirement, intense supervision and surveillance or intense fostering. Intense supervision and surveillance are where instead of going to a secure home, an individual is supervised within the community – this generally includes an electronically monitored curfew. Other sentences are classified as fines, absolute/conditional discharges and victim surcharges – sometimes the judge may find that the experience of going to court is punishment enough. Immediate custody is seen as a last resort , usually given after offenders have failed to comply with the terms in a community sentence – it is the least given sentence . These sentences contain detention and training orders, and a custodial sentence. Detention and training orders are only considered if the offender is between the ages of 12 and 14 years old and are considered a persistent offender . During a detention and training order, the offender is in custody for the first half, then for the second half they are supervised by the youth offending team – similar to the youth rehabilitation order with intensive surveillance and supervision. A custodial sentence is what we know that to be, a prison sentence – they can however only be sentenced to children who have committed grave crimes, and those crimes are laid out in the Power of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act , these sentences are usually over two years as in a detention and training order the maximum time the offender can be in custody is two years. If a child is given a custodial sentence, they will be sent to a secure centre for young people – not an adult prison

Youth courts are formed which consist of three magistrates and one district judge. In a youth court virtually all crimes, except for especially grave ones such as murder or rape – which start in a youth court but ultimately are heard in a Crown Court – are heard. In a youth court, only the sentences up until a detention and training order can be given.

When a young offender is being dealt with, the main aim is the prevent them reoffending – compared to the aims with adults which is generally to punish and to rehabilitate. While the government understands that it is important that young offenders do get sentenced as opposed to merely reprimanded; as Lord Reed states it will not be appropriate to sentence [a child] in the same was an adult, if their immaturity has the consequence that they were less culpable . The case of R v Finnerty is of particular importance when discussing the concept of children being less capable, but still needing to be sentenced – the defendant was initially sentenced to one year in custody for simple arson, a concurrent four years in custody for arson with reckless endangerment to life that had an extension period of three years making it a total of seven years for count two. The initial extended sentence was quashed due to it being unjustified and too harsh; it was replaced with a three-year term – the defendant still received a sentence albeit lesser due the fact he was under 18 reaffirming the principle laid out in the Sentencing Council’s overarching principles . In this case they also stressed that the defendant should be able to remain at home, as it may possibly undo any positive progress made in regard to treatment – keeping the idea of rehabilitation as vital. The factors that are considered when sentencing a child is different to those when discussed while sentencing an adult. These factors are the age of the defendant both chronologically and emotionally, the seriousness of the offence (one such as murder will result in a mandatory custodial sentence, and one such as vandalism may result only in a youth rehabilitation order),the welfare of the child , the likelihood of other offences being committed and the extent of harm likely to occur from those further offences – if someone is seen as highly likely to reoffend they may be given a detention and training order or custodial sentence in order to prevent that. Lady Hale restated the reasons for why children and treated differently from adults in R(Smith) that the great majority of juveniles are less blameworthy and more worthy of forgiveness than adult offenders . The approach to youth sentences is individualistic, each case is different, and all these different factors need to be taken into account each time. These factors become mitigating factors in regard to the actual sentence – the fact they are a child will always reduce their sentence down from the adult mandatory sentence, for example Will Cornick had his 25 year mandatory sentence for murder, reduced to 23 years due to him being under the age of 18 years old (it was then further reduced due to other mitigating factors).

It is not unknown for children to commit crimes, in every corner of the country young offenders operate. One of the most reprehensible crimes anyone could commit, let alone a child, is murder. Child murderers are ones we see in the news and all-over social media; for example, in 2014 a Hartlepool woman was murdered by two teenage girls, aged 13 and 14 years old – it was all over regional news for weeks and so was the consequential trial . Venables and Thompson are another example of the media circus that surrounds juvenile killers, they appealed based on the fact that the sentence given was incredibly harsh due to the fact they had such intense media coverage and scrutiny. Due to the age of these defendants, they tend to garner more attention. Many under 18’s who commit crimes have problems within themselves that may affect them and can contribute to them committing a crime – for instance, James Fairweather has autism , it can be considered that his autism could be the cause for his obsessive behaviour that he exhibited before murdering two strangers and planning to murder more – he also claimed he experienced auditory hallucinations but those claims were never verified . With the ability to arrest and charge youth offenders with crime, there is the chance to help and prevent further crimes from occurring. Helping children is a lot easier then helping adults, and it means if a child is charged with a custodial sentence, they can have mandatory counselling or treatment alongside it. A child who kills has always been more appealing in the argument for a minimum age of criminal responsibility; a child who we see as innocent, naïve and we class as vulnerable – committing one of the most heinous crimes in the criminal calendar – it is unthinkable. Without a minimum age of criminal responsibility, it would not be possible to apprehend these individuals, and some such as Will Cornick would never have had any consequence to their actions – at the time he truly saw no problem with his actions, he knew what he did was wrong but did not have any remorse nor regret The minimum age of criminal responsibility allows for there to be accountability, and for a child to take responsibility for what they have done. Children being made to be held accountable for their actions is not an unpopular belief – from a young age, children are taught to take responsibility for themselves .

We cannot ignore the reality that youth offenders commit crimes other than murder, and that those crimes need to be held accountable for also. In 2018-19, there were over 4,500 reported crimes involving knives or other offensive weapons . Over 60,000 youths were arrested last year, and within that, 19,000 of them received a sentence in court . It would be ignorant to think that those numbers do not warrant a minimum age of criminal responsibility. The ability to apprehend and charge a minor with a criminal offence, is incredibly beneficial as those who go on to commit more serious offences tend to be small time offenders first. One of those forms of crime that youth offenders steer towards is robbery, with its offending rising 5% since 2017 .To be able to catch what could potentially be incredibly dangerous people is beneficial to the criminal justice system. To be able to give children a custodial sentence, which in and of itself is a punishment, with mandatory rehabilitative treatments such as mental health or substance abuse could considerably lessen the risk of them reoffending through a more serious crime. Without the ability to charge, 60,000 children could be walking around causing mayhem with no consequence. A lot of children who are destructive come from backgrounds where their parent is not necessarily present and therefore there are no repercussions to their actions. Without any accountability, there is no responsibility. When a youth offender is sentenced, it is possible for them to be sentenced in a way that places responsibility on the parent as well as the child to help correct their ways – such as a referral order. The application of this would suggest that in some way or another, the parent is also accountable for the actions of the child.

The arguments against a minimum age of criminal responsibility, and specifically the one enforced since 1963, are not hard to come by. Many of those arguments include the doctrine of doli incapax, the criminalisation of children, and

Children between the ages of 10 to 14 years old benefitted greatly from the defence of doli incapax, it worked as a filter which recognised what childhood was, and essentially stopping the minimum age of criminal responsibility from being a definitive age of 10 years old. The presumption benefitted children ages 10 to 14 years old greatly, stopping them from being impacted negatively by the inflexibility of the criminal justice system and the enforcement of it – there was the acknowledgement of their age. It can be argued that the doctrine, however, did not work fully in the way it was supposed to as youths were still being prosecuted despite it being determined they were not mature enough nor did they know the difference between right and seriously wrong – but this is where it fell short: the prosecution only had to prove the child knew the difference between two ends of a spectrum, not between mere naughtiness and seriously wrong. For example, Bandalli suggests that children have a flexible approach to ownership – in the Theft Act 1968 it states that theft is dishonesty with intent to permanently deprive’ – a child may only understand this as only borrowing. Pickford makes the point that opponents of the abolition of the presumption continue to have faith in it despite it being proven to be inadequately protecting the very children it was supposed to protect . This was, however, defended with the justification that the removal was actually the removal of excusing young offenders . In practice, it just did not work sufficiently – it cannot be ignored that it has incredibly strong symbolism, however. The doctrine made it clear that children are different to adults, and therefore need to be dealt with accordingly; the judiciary and the CPS all had to consider the degree of responsibility each child can actually hold and in doing that, help to keep the ‘childhood’ status intact. The abolition of doli incapax, was discussed jointly with the idea to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility – now with the abolition the government has carried out on without the other, leaving a vacuum where there should be protection for children. The case of R v T in 2008 proposed that in actuality, the presumption of doli incapax had been abolished but not the defence itself, that was still, in the law’s eyes, able to be used.

Another reason against a minimum age of criminal responsibility, is the idea of criminalising what is supposed to be a child, and whether it is against their right to be criminalised in such a way. Goldson notes that there is little doubt that punitive imperatives have shaped contemporary policy responses to child ‘offenders’ in England and Wales . The government directly ignores international debate and regulations regarding the age in which to ‘criminalise’ a child. Their stubbornness, alongside the abolition of a defence created purely to protect children, shows almost an obsession with criminalising children and forcing them into our criminal justice system in a hostile way – rather than taking a welfare and approach route which many other European countries follow. These policies that are created by the United Kingdom’s government force a large group of children we would not usually see into the crosshairs of our justice system – sometimes being unfairly punished in a system that in any other circumstance would avert them from unnecessary harm or distress. The inclination to criminalise children could potentially be explained through the idea that we as humans have the innate interest in punishment.

As there is a lot of controversy around raising the criminal age of responsibility from 10 to 14, I recommend that the best course of action would be to raise the minimum age level to 12, while retaining and raising the higher flexible age level to 15 years. This would be a welcome development for children and the justice system in Australia. Former Police Commissioner, Bob Atkinson in a 2018 report commented on the rise of juvenile offenders saying, “If children can’t be kept out of court, all efforts should be made to keep children out of custody prior to and following an appearance in court” he also suggested that a change of criminal responsibility should be adopted nationally. There is an extensive list of alternate punishments to detention for young people of these ages including; employing experienced and qualified staff who are able to deliverer tailored support and whom juveniles are able to create a relationship with, especially at times of high risk investing in programs that intervene early and target the causes of crimes, holding police accountable to have the discretion to send children into programs rather than prosecuting them for minor offences including fare evasion as well as integrating more diversionary, therapeutic and educational programs into the community to give the people in power other options than by putting young people in detention. Programs such as skill building, and counseling have also shown to reduce reoffending within Queensland by 10–15%. By considering these other courses of punishment to young people in our nation, it is important to always keep in mind and ensure that custody should always be a last resort when dealing with children as children from the early ages of 12 and below as they haven’t fully developed as humans and don’t have full brain development and capacity to understand their actions as well as by understanding that early intervention when risk factors associated with antisocial or criminal behaviour are evident, there is a greater chance of preventing a child’s later involvement in criminal acts and improving their life outcomes. This will also limit and reduce the number of children filling the Youth Detention Centres around the nation as the reality of the situation is, the two youth detention centers within Queensland are already over max capacity. Children are vulnerable and it is important that as a society we make them feel safe and can allow them to feel comfortable, especially when dealing with people in authority. Young people do need to stand up and take responsibility and accountability, but by locking them up, throwing away the key, naming and shaming, it won’t make these juvenile offenders feel comfortable enough to understand that the actions they are using aren’t right and they need to change their ways. All Queensland children deserve a positive start in life, but once stuck in the quicksand of the prison system, a child’s chance at a bright future can be lost and diminished forever. The Palaszczuk Government must instead, give young kids the extra support they need, so they can grow and thrive, strong in their communities. From this, it becomes imperative to intervene as early as possible, keep children out of court, out of custody and reduce criminal offending around not only Queensland but the nation.

There are many people nationwide who also believe that raising the criminal age of conviction would benefit all Australians, especially the young people and future leaders of our country. Activism Growth and Development Coordinator of Amnesty International Ms Belinda Lowe stated, ‘It’s critical to raise the age — too many childhoods are being lost in detention centres in Queensland”. This is true in many aspects as children also have the right to be treated with respect and dignity to also live out their lives following the Human Rights that have been laid out for all people all over the world no matter; age, race, gender or religion. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been put in place since 1948 to ensure all people are treated fairly, treat others fairly and have the ability to make genuine choices in our daily lives. In order to have order though out all aspects of our nation, it is imperative that all people no matter the circumstances are treated fairly and with the punishments that deserve. Placing youth in detention should always be a last resort and from the recommendations made, should remain a last resort as locking youth away in detention stops a child to develop in a good environment causing further development issues and stops them from being able to live their lives to the fullest and to the highest potential possible.

Reducing the minimum age from 21 years old to 18 years has brought attention to our country policy and politics. As we know, the voting age in Malaysia is 21 years old on the eligibility date. For sure, everybody has right to cast their votes to determine the future in their country’s but it must be with a rational mind. Eighteen is the legal age of childhood, however, to make this group as a voter is something that requires very deep discussion and cannot be taken lightly. They might end up voting the candidates according to the popularity of the candidates or just follow their parent choice instead of deciding on their own. The voting age in Malaysia should not be reduced from 21 years old to 18 years old. Between 18 years old to 21 years old is the stage where they make mistakes and learn from the mistakes to gain experience for a new life.

First, the youth will be probably influenced by their parent on whom to vote for because of the lack of information about politics. They believed that the choices made by parents are the best because the parents have extensive experience, knowledge, or the background of the candidates. They might slightly aware of the political situation in the country but not have enough knowledge to make a decision to vote. They as young people do not know much or talk about issues political. They love enjoyable things like hanging out with friends, shopping, traveling or doing something fun and political issues seem boring to some of them. Like I say, the decision probably made by parents because at home parents tend to talk about politics and defend their choice. I agree that young people can gain knowledge due to technologically advanced without borders which have exposed the generation into the political world, but there a lot website contains fake information and they may get wrong information. When they are not aware of this, the opportunity to choose the wrong candidate is high and the wrong decision can lead to a big problem in the country. Therefore, the voters who cannot make their own decisions are not eligible to vote.

Furthermore, voting age should not reduce to 18 years old because political awareness is still low among them. As we know, most of them are students and do not interest or not fully understand the politics. They just focus on academic achievement and get ready for preparation for the work environment to help their family. They are busy due to the tight schedule of study until they do not have time to keep up with current political development. For those who are taking a course in political science, law or religious studies, it will not be a problem for them because they need to alert with current issues political but for those who do not take the course it will be difficult for them. The youth with a low level of political awareness makes it difficult to assess and see issues raised, especially related things with race and religion or sensitive issues that may lead to misunderstandings. When their opinions are not accepted, they are more likely to respond emotionally and not rationally. In politic we need to be mature and open-minded when comes for discussion or something like that. I am not saying that everyone in 18 years old is not mature, some may think maturely and some do not. Every person has the mentality differs. It depends on how they think about something. Maturity is not based on their age, but how they think rationally is important to show how they look for someone that can lead and govern our country well.

However, if the government still want to consider about reducing the voting age, they should need find alternative that can increase knowledge about political among the students from school. For example, they can introduce the young generation about election and voting systems into the school subject. This will give young generations the opportunity to become responsible voters and exposed to them about our country politics and show how their role as the youth who will capable of make wise decisions regarding to the future of the country. For example, a student leader in school can be voted by all students based on his/ her performance, attitude or how they handle the problems. Through this practice, students will be exposed to the process of democratizing system as our country does. The voting process can implement by setting up the station to allow students vote in real situations. This situation will create a sense of responsibility and motivate them that their opinion is really important to the future of the country. Every student needs to know why the vote important because the voting will be impacted the country. Young people need to be exposed to the current political situation in the beginning of school and become adults that can think rationally and critically. In summary, I believe if this thing works out, it is not impossible to reduce the voting age to 18 years old because they are already prepared by knowledgeable and decide by their own without influence by other people.

In conclusion, reducing the voting age from 21 years old to 18 years old should be considered. As we know, older voters have the benefit in having more understanding and knowledge about the qualifications of each candidate if compared to younger people especially people who are just finishing their secondary school. Like I mention before, they easily influenced by people around them and more easily manipulated by others. They also lack of knowledge and experience to participate fully in politics that can bring a wrong decision when make a voting. Disagree about reducing to 18 years old voter doesn’t mean the voice of the youth is not needed, but for making them as a voter that really important for the sake of the country, the government need to make sure that this generation is really prepared enough to involve themselves in politics. I think the learning process about politic in school might will increase political involvement among students and the knowledge they gained will help them to think carefully about their decision.

“At some age the stage of a child’s moral and intellectual development would be reached, such that at and above that age the child could be treated as a responsible agent (for purposes of the criminal law), and below that age the child could not be so treated.” (G Maher, 2005)

A recent account by the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s (ABC) 4 Corners program of young children in detention has reignited debate both domestically and internationally around the seemingly arbitrary minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR). The following report sets out to critically review the empirical evidence regarding various factors that contribute to adolescent offending and if this evidence indicates a more suitable method of assigning a MACR in Australia. It is my position that the MACR in Australia, which currently stands at ten years of age, is misguided and that the minimum age should be increased to 14 years. To support this view, I will argue that society should be aiming to reflect what many academics believe to be substantial environmental (Kambam and Thompson, 2009. Somerville, Jones and Casey, 2010. Duell, et al. 2016. Steinberg, 2008), biological (Kambam and Thompson, 2009. Steinberg, 2008. Shulman, et al., 2016.), psychological (Kambam and Thompson, 2009. Mathews, 2000. Reniers, Murphy, Lin, Bartolome and Wood, 2016.) and socio-emotional (Kambam and Thompson, 2009., Steinberg, 2008.) limitations experienced by developing adolescents, making them less able to moderate their behaviour when considering concepts of (criminal) responsibility. To best determine a morally and ethically acceptable MACR, it is essential to understand the psychosocial, biological, emotional and behavioural changes that occur over adolescence. In this report, I will be focussing on bio-psychosocial changes, that is, biological, psychological and socio-emotional changes and their influence on problematic, sensation-seeking behaviour and poor life choices of adolescents.

The United Nations (UNCRC, 2007) and Amnesty International, along with numerous legal scholars and mental health professionals have long opposed countries that attribute a MACR to pre-adolescent (˂ 10 years of age) and early adolescent children (10 – 14 years of age). They cite four developmental deficiencies that often affect children in contact with the justice system, memory, communication skills, social orientation and suggestibility. Additionally, children aged 10–13 years are particularly vulnerable to peer pressure (Amnesty International, The sky is the limit, 2018). To further this train of thought, culpability (a measured degree of responsibility) is proportional, ergo the evaluation of culpability is mainly a moral decision (Cauffman and Steinberg, 2000). If moral standards are to apply to offenders of varying levels of maturity, evaluations of maturity (and future determinations of culpability) should also address the influences guiding adolescent decisions (Cauffman and Steinberg, 2000, Modeki, 2008. Farmer, 2011).

Australia’s currently operates under the common law “mens rea” rationale where the mental element of an offence is distinct from the question of whether the offender understood the wrongfulness of the act. A child may possess required mens rea (e.g., an intention to harm) without perceiving the wrongfulness of the act (Crofts, 2014). Beyond ten years of age until 14 a discretionary defence, albeit a rebuttable one, called “doli incapax” is offered to adolescents between 10 and 14. Between these ages offenders are presumed to lack the understanding to be criminally responsible (unless proved otherwise), based on the assumption that children between 10 and 14 cannot understand the difference between right and wrong. The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) noted that: “Doli incapax can be problematic for a number of reasons. For example, it is often difficult to determine whether a child knew that the relevant act was wrong unless he or she states this during a police interview or in court. Therefore, to rebut the presumption, the prosecution has sometimes been permitted to lead highly prejudicial evidence that would ordinarily be inadmissible. In these circumstances, the principal may not protect children but be to their disadvantage (ALRC 1997: [18.19]).”

The UNCRC has also commented on the limitations of doli incapax, arguing that ‘the system of two minimum ages is often not only confusing but leaves much to the discretion of the court/judge and may result in discriminatory practices’ (UNCRC, 2007.)

To better understand the cognitive and moral development of adolescents, and how these affect decision-making processes, research in the field of cognition and morality needs to be explored. Ben Mathews (2000) draws on the seminal research of psychologists Jean Piaget (1936) and Lawrence Kohlberg (1958) to explain the complex pathway children follow prior to accomplishing a mature concept of morality. A young child, for example, would consider a law to be a construct enforced by an authority figure and as such, would be motivated to obey the rule in fear of punishment or expectation of reward. The decision to comply, or not, is, therefore, dependant on the outcome and not the intent to act. A more mature child of 16, recognises that rules are based on intent and outcome and accepts that rules may be changed if a compromise is reached between parties. Once a progressive concept of morality is attained, individuals are better able to account for other groups of people and society as a whole.

Piaget’s (1936) theory of cognitive development may have inadvertently lent credibility to the method of allocating an age to criminal responsibility; however, it is important to note that Piaget acknowledged that accommodation should be made for exceptions within the model, as not all adolescents mature at the same rate (Mathews, 2000.). This view is more broadly supported by Post-Piaget researchers who tend to favour a non-age-related information processing approach which views cognitive change as continuous rather than stage-related (J. Arnett, 2018.).

Just as there is a link between cognitive development and moral reasoning, there also exists a link to problematic or risk-prone behaviour. Trimpop (1994), proposed that risk-taking is “any consciously, or non-consciously controlled behaviour with a perceived uncertainty about its outcome, and about its possible benefits or costs for the physical, economic or psychosocial wellbeing of oneself or others.” Criminal offences are listed among key risk behaviours in adolescence (Mathews, 2000., Shulman and Cauffman, 2013.) with death and injury rates 200% greater than their younger peers, however, this behaviour quickly tails off into through early adulthood (Tymula et al., 2012). The Dual Systems Model lends weight to the argument that children in mid-adolescence are more susceptible to risk-oriented and antisocial behaviour.

Heightened vulnerability to impulse control and risk-taking in mid-adolescence may increase the probability of offending but not on their own. The Dual Sytems Model (DSM) is a theory to come out of developmental cognitive neuroscience that suggests increased risk-taking during adolescence is symptomatic of a dopamine heightened disposition to seek out risk and reward at a time where the capacity for cognitive directed self-control is comparatively underdeveloped (……….). Steinberg (2007, 2008, 2009) argues that excessive levels of problematic behaviour in adolescence are a result of competition between two very different brain systems, the socioemotional and cognitive control networks, both of which continue to mature throughout adolescence, but along very different timetables (Steinberg, 2007., 2008., 2009.).

The first of these systems to impact adolescent behaviour occurs around the same time that adolescents undergo puberty. The socioemotional system (SES) becomes very active at this stage of development, contributing to adolescents becoming more readily aroused and open to experiencing intense emotion while becoming more sensitive to social (peer) influence (Steinberg, 2007. Shulman et al., 2015). Within the developing socioemotional network, a remodelling of the dopaminergic system occurs, resulting in a reduction of dopamine receptor density. As a result of this remodelling, dopaminergic activity in the prefrontal cortex increases significantly playing a critical role in the brain’s reward circuitry leading to an increase in reward and sensation-seeking behaviour in early adolescence (Steinberg 2007., 2009., Shulman et al., 2015).

An increase in reward-seeking coupled with the delay in the development of the cognitive control system results in a temporal gap between socioemotional arousal, advanced self-regulation and impulse control that exposes a child’s vulnerability toward risk-taking during middle adolescence (Shulman and Cauffman, 2013., Steinberg 2007., Shulman et al., 2015.). NSW Commissioner for Children and Young People, Megan Mitchell, puts this into perspective (SMH, G, Jacobsen, 2012)

“A kid will do almost anything to maintain peer relations even if they are engaging in antisocial or criminal behaviour … They could very well realise it is wrong, but the pleasure-seeking and the immediate reward-seeking responses in the brain outweigh that thinking.”

Steinberg (2010) goes on to offer that despite it not being clear whether an escalation in reward-seeking is caused by increases in dopamine production or merely coincident with it. It is, therefore, conceivable that changes in neurobiology that promote reward-seeking are triggered to synchronise with sexual maturation, in order to promote the type of risk-taking that would be evolutionarily adaptive (Steinberg, 2010).

Sensation-seeking, because it involves branching out into the unfamiliar, carries a certain degree of risk, risk-taking that may prove essential in order to survive and thrive. This theory would be enhanced if risky behaviour was cross-cultural and cross-national. Indeed, Steinberg (2008) notes a study by Wilson & Daly (1993) involving research on the Ache in Venezuela; the Yamamano in Brazil; the Kung in Africa, where “young men are constantly being assessed as prospects by those who might select them as husbands and lovers…” and, “prowess in hunting, warfare, and other dangerous activity is evidently a major determinant of young men’s marriageability” (Steinberg, 2008.) Cross cultural evidence was also noted in a paper by Duell et al. (2016) where a sample of 49.3% Males and 50.7% females (5,227 individuals) between the ages of 10-30 from 11 counties were given a set of reward seeking and risk taking assessments concurring that “Although the basic tenets of the dual systems model appear to hold across cultures, in that risk taking is associated with higher reward seeking and lower self-regulation, there are cultural differences in the ways these factors operate”.

Similar assessments were reported by Steinberg (2008). To put it another way, risky behaviour is normative for adolescents crossing both cultural and national boundaries. What differs between cultures and nations is the context that drives risk and reward.

Children between the ages of 10 and 17 make up 13% of offenders in Australian prisons with around 600 of these being under the age of 14 (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2015. The health of Australia’s prisoners, 2015) and this is unacceptable but understandable under the circumstances. Adolescence is a time where individuals are able to test their environment without a high degree of self regulation and impulse control, particularly where males are concerned. If started at an early age individuals who engage with the justice system can suffer long term effects that can be quite profound (Amnesty International, The sky is the limit, 2018). According to Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive development the formal operation stage sees an improvement in impulse control followed by greater risk assessment and ongoing risk management. These stages are reached incrementally, and it is impossible to conclude that an individual will have reached a certain level of cognition by a particular age. These stages of development highlight that while children may appear to identify right and wrong behaviour, they lack an appreciation for why rules exist and the implications of these rules for society. Younger children, therefore, need protection from the law and should not be held criminally responsible for their actions.

Does imprisoning children who commit criminal offenses safeguard the law and uphold justice or is it a crude and immoral way of making them aware of what the law can do? Nowadays, our essence of justice is subtly deviated due to the excessive corruption among politicians, increasing rate of poverty, continual consumption of prohibited drugs, and many unmentioned social issues wherein juvenile crimes are just a symptom of the present immoralities. Children are ignorant of what the law can do and the gravity of the punishments it gives; thus, making them easy targets for coercion into committing heinous deeds. The proliferation of juvenile crimes such as murder, rape, and among others propels congress to amend the current Bill RA 10630 where the age of 15 must be set lower to 12 as the minimum age for criminal liability. Children at age 12 are still in that stage wherein they imitate what they see in their surroundings and their young age makes them susceptible to exploitation by adult syndicates. Those children who are apprehended are placed into juvenile correctional facilities or Bahay Pag-Asa’s. Despite being a juvenile correctional facilities, some of these places are not suitable environments for children and can affect their physical and psychological well-being. The recently approved proposed bill of lowering the age for imprisonment will inflict psychological trauma to the children and will not equate in lowering the crime rates in the Philippines; the government should improve the quality of the Bahay Pag-Asa or in Barangay Councils for Protection of Children (BCPC) and ensure that every child has access to have quality education, health care, and housing.

Imprisoning children at a very young age will inflict very harmful trauma to them. With the currently available facilities provided for the Children-in-Conflict with the Law (CICL), Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC) executive director Tricia Oco regarded the current state as worse than jail cells since she described them as the children having no beds and cabinets to use and there are no programs for them to do anything, which sometimes causes them to commit self-harm due to boredom. Panaligan (2019) cites an example of the situation of Ivan, who was 17 years old when he was charged with rape. “It hurts because our childhood was robbed from us, having to spend it in this kind of place. We grew up and we were not able to make the most of our time outside,” Ivan said. Moreover, the facilities even lack the necessities they needed such as food, clean water, and the like. One facility located in Malolos, Bulacan is said to be overcrowded since the ideal capacity is forty children; however, as of February 2019, there are 138 children who are in the facility. Facilities provided for the CICL are very lacking, and instead of being able to provide aid, the exact opposite is instead given to them.

Children, particularly those who are at the age of 12 years old, are still in the development phase of processing knowledge in their minds. They do not have enough understanding to settle on a reasoned decision, manage their emotional impulses, and contemplate the aftermath of the actions they have done (Geronimo, 2017). Also, Rymanowicz (2015) discussed that children follow the famous saying of ‘monkey see, monkey do,’ where they learn their actions and grasp behaviors from their surroundings through observation. They are still in that stage of development where they imitate actions. This is the reason why some children are easily employed by adult syndicates, especially the vulnerable ones who were not raised with proper parenting techniques and education. Even though each individual has different reasons for committing a crime, once they have been characterized as criminals, they regularly face new issues that come from the responses of the self and others to the negative stigma that is appended to the label. Due to this, labeling children as criminals will cause them psychological trauma as it molds their sense of self with a criminal identity (Bernburg, 2009). This has been supported by the labeling theory of Howard Becker (1963): a sociological approach that deals with the roles of being labeled as criminals to a certain individual. The assumption of this theory is actions that are done by each individual are not naturally characterized as criminal since people in power were the ones who established the actions that are considered criminal through laws. As a result, deviance is not a set of characteristics but a way of interacting of the context of how criminality is comprehended by the deviants and non-deviants. Class and race play significant roles in the labeling theory. For instance, if a child breaks a rule and belongs in the upper class of society, the officials will view it as normal adolescent conduct; however, if the child belongs in the lower sectors of society, it might be seen as an indicator of juvenile delinquency (Crossman, 2019).

For these problems to be tackled, a suggestion is to give the children who have committed crimes another opportunity to rehabilitate by placing them in a safe, alternative, confidential, and friendly space wherein they undergo programs and interventions to correct their behaviors and would enable them to return to society as a socially functioning citizen. For this to successfully happen, the government must fully implement the current justice act by allocating a proper budget for the improvement of the current rehabilitation facilities.

Under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2013, there should be enough facilities nationwide: ‘The law requires each province and highly urbanized city to build, fund, and operate a Bahay Pag-Asa, defined as a 24-hour child-caring institution that would serve as a short-term residential care and rehabilitation for CICL, instead of regular jails.’ However, with the current state of the government, the facilities are not given proper importance. One instance is that the proposed 2019 national appropriations mention no allocation for the roll-out or maintenance of the facilities.

Fortunately, there is an effective Bahay Pag-Asa youth care facility that is run by Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian, who is a former Valenzuela City mayor. Around 75% of CICLs that were brought to the Valenzuela facility were rehabilitated, reunited with their families, and proceeded to continue their studies after they administered comprehensive rehabilitation programs for them. “So, if there is the proper facility, the proper intervention program, and the local government unit will do its job, the children have hope,” said Gatchalian (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2019). Given this situation, there is still hope to solve the issue. The local government must be given a budget for improving the current rehabilitation facilities. Afterward, they must create an effective and efficient system in hiring enough staff and more trained people, such as social workers and psychologists to properly handle the children to let them become responsible adults in the future. This can be done by providing them with lectures and workshops that allow these children to develop their skills and talents so as to flourish in their future careers. If there are not enough trained people to hire, the local government may administer training programs to people who are willing to help take care of the children.

Focusing on crimes committed by children and lowering the age of criminal liability does not equate to decreasing the proliferation of juvenile crimes. The Philippine National Police (PNP) revealed that the percent distribution of crimes committed by children is only 2% while the remaining 98% were committed by adults. Logically speaking, the 2% of crimes covering juvenile delinquencies seem negligible already and cannot speak for the total number of crimes. One cannot argue the fact that there is still lack of evidence showing that children are responsible for the increase of crime rate in the Philippines.

According to Temple (2018, as cited in Sambalud, 2018), undersecretary for Protective Operations and Programs: “before the passage of RA 9344, a total of 52,576 children were in detention or under the custodial setting.” The years that followed showed a decline in the number of CICL cases as well as Children at Risk (CAR) cases. In the years 2012 to 2015, 27,823 CICL cases were tallied by the PNP wherein 49% committed theft, 22% were responsible for physical injuries, and robberies at 9%. In addition, 7,986 CAR cases were recorded in the same year, citing the JJWC report (Templa, 2018, as cited in Samablud, 2018). The majority of these crimes were in violation of city and municipal ordinances at 94% while 6% is in violation of anti-substance abuse-related cases and vagrancy (Sambalud, 2018).

Although incumbent Senate President Vicente Sotto III stated that in comparison to other countries, the Philippines’ age of criminal liability is much higher. He further added that the country must meet international standards in order to suppress criminals in general and that current provisions of RA 9344 exempt children 15 years old and below from being liable and accountable for their criminal acts. This made Senate President Vicente Sotto III file a bill amending RA 9344 and lowering the age for criminal liability to 12 years old instead of 15.

If the age of criminal liability is lowered, this can be considered an act of violence against children. CICL are victims of circumstances such as poverty, unsafe nurturing environments, and exploitation by adult crime syndicates. Branding children, as young as 12 years old, as criminals remove the accountability of the parents and/or guardians responsible for these children. Detaining the children, as young as they are, is robbing them of their childhood and their chances of contributing in the nation-building of our country. Adult syndicates responsible for exploiting these children would not be held accountable for their actions (UNICEF, 2019).

Instead of detaining these children, intervention by the government is a viable solution in lessening juvenile crime. (UNICEF, 2019). Tinkering with the age of criminal liability is not really necessary, but improvements on intervention programs might aid in lowering the crime rate of children below 15 years old. Temple (2018, as cited in Sambalud, 2018) said that talking to children in their early stages of life plays a big role in helping them build their “self” that can contribute to society. In addition, she claimed that promulgating laws and program conceptualization says a lot about how people view children, especially those in conflict with the law, of our society. Addressing the roots of juvenile crime instead, like improper parenting, lack of access to education and social services plays a critical role in addressing this issue and removing the stigma that children are responsible for the high crime rate of the Philippines.

A parenting program is a form of intervention that can not only eliminate violence against children but also lessen juvenile delinquency. As the old saying goes, “parents are the first educators of their children.” The majority of the 2% of juvenile delinquents belong to the lower class. Families belonging to this class are challenged; thus, the government must scrutinize and supervise the parenting process to ensure children are raised to become respectful of their culture while doing no harm regardless of their gender or religion (Sambalud, 2018). For instances where parents are considered unfit in taking care of their children and parenting programs and seminars are not the best solutions, the custody of the child or of the children will be transferred to other relatives, other guardians, or any other environment where they can receive better care as deemed by the court (Peeler, 2019).

Hiring social workers, psychologists, and other health professionals who can properly assess CICL is also critical in lowering the rate of juvenile delinquency in the country. If children were found to have infringed the ordinances in their cities or municipalities, they will undergo an assessment by social workers to determine the proper court ruling in accordance to the Supreme Court issuance of the rules on juvenile justice. If ever the government fails to hire social workers who can properly carry out the assessment, proper intervention is not being carried out. The rate of misbranding children as criminals then increases bringing psychological effects to them. The JJWC should provide child-friendly sentencing to ensure that children who infringed the law are still held accountable for their actions without violating their rights (Sambalud, 2018).

Access to education is also important in a child’s development. When parents or guardians are unable to teach their children to discern what is right or wrong, teachers will now be responsible in making the children understand what is deemed acceptable in our society (UNICEF, 2019). Children must be aware of the importance of not giving in to peer pressure and avoiding doing criminal acts. Education inspires children to aspire for something bigger in their life. The government must promote the importance of education to both parents and children, especially those belonging to the lower class. In addition, public education must be made more accessible to children living in rural areas. Some students are not exposed to proper education because of their inability to attend school, citing that it is too far. Making educational services proximal to children, especially those who are in the developmental stage of 12-15 years old, will greatly aid them in developing proper habits and decision-making while decreasing their chances of committing crimes.

The government may also spread awareness regarding intervention programs done to address juvenile crimes. Even the people not directly involved in these types of crime, inform them that the government takes the necessary steps in lowering the number of juvenile delinquencies thus slowly removing the stigma surrounding CICL.

The bill of lowering the criminal age liability has brought up problems such as causing trauma to children. This bill also isn’t the right way to address the issue and the stigma of crime in the country. To avoid inflicting trauma on CICL, government officials may best support these children by having 24-hour, fully functioning, rehabilitation facilities. In this way, these children are taken care of, protected, and taught in child-caring institutions instead of the regular jails which are not suitable for young individuals. It has also been statistically proven that tinkering with the age of criminal liability from 15 to 12 is not really needed, but improvements on the intervention programs is what we must focus on because it greatly reduced the crime rate involving children below 15 years old. In particular, parenting programs; hiring of social workers, psychologists, and other health professionals; access to education; and spreading of awareness are some of the many solutions our government officials can work on to tackle this problem and improve the quality of life of each child. The future of our children’s lives is threatened by this bill and we must understand that children are not solely to be blamed for the crimes they commit and that their parents and environment are part of the equation. All in all, we must focus on funding the aforementioned programs to ensure the mental and physical well-being of our children, allowing them to better themselves for our society and, ultimately, our country’s future.