Should The Age Of Criminal Responsibility Be Raised?

In the middle of March this year UNICEF urged Iran to increase their age of criminal responsibility for children, which, in Iran, is currently 9 for girls and 15 for boys. There are two things about this that are shocking; firstly there is not a blanket age for both boys and girls and also that the youngest age here is 9. After reading about this naturally I was curious as to what this meant and also whether there was anywhere where the age of criminal responsibility was any younger. Broadly, the age of criminal responsibility is the age at which a person can be charged and tried with a crime and surprisingly (or perhaps unsurprisingly) the US has the youngest age for criminal responsibility at 7 years old across the majority of states. The UK has the age set at ten but there is currently a Private Members Bill looming in Parliament (at its second reading stage, so unlikely to be brought to the commons) to increase the criminal age of responsibility in Britain.

Obviously, there is a real issue as to whether children know the difference between right and wrong and whether they have the emotional maturity to be fully aware of the consequences of their actions at such a young age. In England a “child” cannot vote until 18 because they are viewed to not be mature enough yet they can be charged as an adult. There seems to be a degree of hypocrisy here; claiming that a child cannot make such a big decision about the government of their country, yet suddenly are deemed to have enough life experience, be emotional and mentally prepared and aware of the consequences of their actions when it comes to being tried of a crime. There is an argument that whilst a child may realise the difference between right and wrong they cannot truly understand the varying degrees of wrong doing. However, clearly a vast number of children do know the difference between right and wrong at the age of ten, and exposed to a culture of media and press coverage that makes it blatantly clear day in day out what is right and wrong there is little to suggest that many children do not know this difference. Whilst understanding may be slightly different it is impossible to do an individual assessment of each child before convicting and sentencing. It would not be fair to say that one child, because of their circumstances, is far more aware of right and wrong than another who has committed the same crime. A probabilistic approach has to be taken towards this. But is 10 year old too young? There is evidence to suggest that at around 12/13 a child is far more aware of what is right and wrong and is emotionally capable of recognising this. This is probably true – at this stage a child has attended secondary school for nearly two years and will be increasingly aware of what is right and wrong.

There also seems to be an element of the fact that if you charge a child for a crime too young they do not fully understand the legal process and therefore it is argued cannot receive a fair trial. Obviously, it is important that a fair trial is held to discover if a person is innocent or guilty and an inability to understand the process and give clear instructions with inconsistent responses will hinder the trial being fair. Of course, a court room is a challenging experience and the atmosphere is not ideal for a child but there are plenty of children, far younger, who stand as witnesses against tough questioning and are fully capable of maintaining a level head. For example, in May 2010 when two boys, aged 10 and 11 were charged with the rape of an 8 year old girl it was the 8 year old girl who offered the most consistent and effective testimony. She was not phased by the pressure of the court room despite being the person to whom the crime had been committed against. It is difficult to argue that a child does not understand the legal proceedings and that this can prove a valid reason to not prosecute.

Yet, if the age were to be raised then horrific crimes that are fully capable of adult punishment should not be ignored. Clearly, in the murder of James Bulger in 1993 Venables and Thompson were both fully aware that what they were doing was wrong and have been found by forensic psychiatrists to understand that what they did was wrong. Both were aged 10 but understood. If the age of criminal responsibility were to be raised then blatant criminals like that could avoid punishment because they are deemed to be too young. In this case the defence did bring up a good point; Venables and Thompson were both a victim of circumstance. Studies have shown that vulnerable children who have grown up in poverty, have been uncared for, have been abused, have been victims of crime themselves or are members of gangs are considerably more likely to commit crimes. There is a suggestion that these circumstances should be addressed rather than punishing the child for their actions. Yet circumstance shouldn't be an excuse for Venables and Thompson; their crime was horrific and no amount of difficult circumstances should justify this.

Psychologically, I don’t think that at the age of 10 a child is fully capable of being tried as an adult; they are still in infant school! For the majority of small crimes it probably isn’t worth putting a child through the process of prosecution, there are far more effective methods of dealing with a crime. For these case raising the age of criminal responsibility to 12 is arguably much better for society. However, for crimes such as murder and rape there must be severe punishments and court proceedings are clearly necessary. A 10 year old committing a murder – which is so intrinsically wrong and something a child knows is unacceptable from a very young age – offers little doubt that they are fully responsible for their actions and must be tried accordingly.

Alice

My Favourite Vladimir Putin Memes

Enjoy

Catty 

One Step Closer To Global Domination For Poo-tin

The never ending crisis in Ukraine has hit boiling point as the 'perfectly legal' (according to the wonderful Russian leader Putin, or as I like to call him, Poo) referendum in the Crimea has voted to leave the Ukraine and become a part of Russia once again. Of course, the Cold War Communist leader Mikhail Gorbachev has popped up and argued that: "Crimea was previously attached to Ukraine under Soviet laws, that is, under the [Communist] party's laws and without asking the people. But now the same people have righted that mistake. This is to be welcomed." 
The EU and US have deemed the referendum illegitimate and Kiev added that it will not recognise the results of the referendum. President Obama has made it very clear that Russia's continuation of its pursuit for the Crimea, he, along with the EU, would impose further sanctions. He warned, it would "achieve nothing except to further isolate Russia and diminish its place in the world".

However, despite the threats from the West, the Crimean parliament declares the region's independence and formally applies to join Russia. 

THE REFERENDUM - "IT'S SO UNFAIR"

You can tell that the referendum was written by a Putin bum- licker.

Most importantly, there is no option to keep things the way they are. 
The referendum is written in 3 languages: Russian, Ukrainian and Tatar.
The first question: Do you support reunifying Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?
The second: Do you support the restoration of the 1992 Crimean constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?
Lastly, the paper adds that choosing both options would make it 'invalid'.

REFERENDUM RESULT: 

Election officials in Crimea, where pro-Russian forces are in control, said 97% of voters backed joining Russia with turnout at 83%.

CRIMEA'S DECLARATION
According to the declaration approved by Crimean MPs, the region:

1. Becomes an independent state and applies to formally join Russia, with some autonomy
2. Will adopt the Russia rouble as its currency within a month
3. Will move to Moscow time (GMT+4 and two hours ahead of Kiev time) on 30 March
4. Will offer Crimean soldiers the chance to join Russian military

THE MAN BEHIND IT ALL

I think this image really accurately shows what Putin is trying to do here. He, like Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev, basically want to control the whole world and I don't understand what he cannot get in his shiny, bald, kind of small, head...NO ONE IS EXPANDING THEIR EMPIRES ANYMORE. GET OVER IT.

Catty 

Paedophilia Scandal In Downing Street Sparks New Outrage, Old Questions

The revelations over Downing Street's failed cover up of senior aide David Rock's arrest for child pornography last week have thrown sex scandals in to the news yet again. Starting with Saville and others from the BBC in 2012, more recently schools and now unbelievably the Commons; these stories have rarely been absent from the papers over the last few years,
This to me, is worrying on multiple levels. Firstly the thought of a person trusted to formulate policy and advise on the running of the country being involved in child pornography is of course deeply troubling; you would think that for all our Government's faults they might be able to manage a decent back ground check on their staff. However what I find more shocking, especially in the more serious cases of serial offences such as Saville's, is that these people were never challenged by colleagues and that victims were continually ignored. Looking back at the details of the Saville cases now, it appears glaringly obvious that abuse was taking place, and the question to be asked therefore in this and all the other cases is why has it taken until now for it to be exposed. The answer is not particularly palatable; these paedophiles or sexual predators exposed recently all share one thing in common, other than the disgusting nature of their crimes, and that is that they are all in positions of power and trust. Radio DJs, head teachers, policy advisors; all positions that provide them with enough of a standing for a suspicious colleague to tell themselves 'surely not' and ignore it, or those who knew to simply turn a blind eye. This is what scares me, that we live in a society that despite our pretences at modernity still contains the level of blind deference to authority that allows crimes such as these to go unreported for  so long .
The only positive to be drawn from this is that these crimes are finally emerging, maybe 50 years too late in many cases but this is still an important step and indicates the beginning of change. The argument made by some that these things should be left in the past and not 'dragged up for no reason' bemuses me, justice should be done no matter how late, for the sake of the victims still suffering from the consequences of crimes that could have been avoided were it not for the cowardice of far too many people. The positive effects of this are showing already, many more victims have been given  the confidence to speak out  in turn and one by one the failings of the past are being at least acknowledged if not repaired. The question of why they were allowed to happen in the first place however is one which will continue to be asked for a good while yet.

Caitlin

"Deeply Troubling" - Will Another Inquiry Really Make A Difference?

In recent years it seems that the police have taken a real battering; first the allegations of a police cover up at Hillsborough and the controversy surrounding the Plebgate row. But now Home Secretary Theresa May has told MPs about "shocking" findings of an inquiry into the aftermath of the Stephen Lawrence murder over 20 years ago.
It is common knowledge the police handling of the Stephen Lawrence case following his murder in 1993 was an absolute disaster; the Macpherson inquiry told us that. It took just under 20 years for any form of justice to be delivered to his family, however tenuous it may have been - after all, only 2 of the 4 men accused of successfully been prosecuted. Since 1999 and the outcome of the Macpherson inquiry the police force have been tainted with the image of "institutional racism" and has long struggled to come out from under that shadow.
Early last month it was further alleged that the police also tried to cover up the mistakes that they made slandering the Lawrence family name and destroying essential evidence. A recent review from Mark Ellison QC revealed that a police undercover officer attached to the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) was working closely within the Lawrence family over the duration of the Macpherson inquiry, but this had been kept a secret. Ellison argues "the mere presence of an undercover Metropolitan police officer in the wider Lawrence family camp in such circumstances is highly questionable in terms of the appearance it creates of the police having a spy in the family's camp".
May has stated the review was "deeply troubling" and has now ordered another judge-led inquiry into the activities of the, now non-existent, SDS.
But is another judicial inquiry actually going to make a significant difference? It's questionable whether another public inquiry is actually going to reveal anything new; there can be little more evidence of police corruption from the original murder investigation. Especially since the SDS is no longer existence (having been disbanded in 2008) any further inquiry into their corruption is going to prove what has long been known; the 1993 Stephen Lawrence murder trial was inherently racist.
This begs the question whether it would be far more beneficial to actually begin charging officers in court for a suspected offence if there is a sufficient level of evidence to corruption. Currently the Home Secretary proposes introducing a new offence of "police corruption" because it is not possible to rely on the outdated offence of misconduct in public office regarding such cases. It's hard to believe there are not already laws against this kind of behaviour that could be used instead. Perhaps the sheer volume of money that is going to need to be spent on launching another inquiry would be far better spent prosecuting those have already been found to be corrupt. Surely this sends a better message? Be found to be corrupt and you will be prosecuted rather than be found to be corrupt and all you will receive is encouragement to resign.  
Lawrence's family on the other hand fully support the "final nail in the coffin". For the family "the long fight for truth and justice continues" and this investigation is just a further factor confirming that the police cannot be "trusted". For this family their son's memory has been increasingly tainted by further revelations of police corruption. Arguably, these further revelations have become far more than the original trial, but has spawned into something far more important; the beginning of the end of police corruption.
At every turn it seems that the reputation of the police is taking a significant battering. The Hillsborough and Macpherson inquiries have left a lasting legacy of police corruption that the police have long found difficult to shake, even though huge leaps have been made to transform the police force since. It is hard to see what else another inquiry would do now the damage has already been done.

Alice

Gender Inequality - An International Problem

Having read Caitlin’s post I came away feeling a little depressed as I realised that everything she said was true. The issue of gender equality in Britain is becoming far more about statistics and “point scoring” than about actually making any real difference. This got me thinking about Britain’s position on gender equality in a wider context and how we compare to other countries.  My conclusion was to think that at least I live in a country where a conscious effort is being made to further equality between men and woman, and thank God I live in a country where (at least by law) men and woman do have equal rights! Sadly this is not the case in so many different places around the world. I was visiting my little 4 year cousin this weekend and as we were walking through town she pointed to a wedding dress in a shop window and said; “I want to wear a dress like that when I get married, and I want to look really pretty.” This simple and innocent wish is one that all young girls should be able to enjoy and dreams of looking beautiful on your wedding day when you are united with the man you have chosen and love should be an achievable reality. In too many cases however a girl’s wedding can become a day of dread and fear, as she waits terrified to be married to a complete stranger she has never met. In fact “married” is not the right word, become the “property of” would be more appropriate.  Cases of child brides are particularly high in some African countries, Nigeria having some of the highest statistics globally. In July 2013 the Nigerian government carried out a review of its constitution and decided to take a vote on whether clause 29, “any woman who is married shall be deemed to be full of age”, should be removed. This clause enables children under the age of 18 to get married, and once they have done so forces them take on full the full responsibilities of marriage. This includes acting as their husband’s sexual partner and giving birth to children. The Nigerian government had the chance to change this clause and to protect children under the age of 18 from becoming adults before their time. The majority vote was not to change this clause. This shows how deep rooted gender inequality still is in some countries and how some societies still think it is acceptable to stifle a woman’s rights in this way and stop them from having an equal role in their homes and communities. It is evident to me that this is an international problem with many of the causes being rooted in sexist constitutional laws and conventions. The key to change is to first change the law, and then to change public opinion. In the deep south of America it took a couple of Supreme Court rulings to end segregation but much much longer to make people accept these rulings. Without this initial constitutional change however people would never have been forced to act and eventually think differently. A similar process needs to happen for woman’s right and equality. The law needs to change making it absolutely impossible for child marriages to legally happen, this then needs to be implemented and from there change will start to take place. To my mind this is an international political issue that needs to be addressed by governments globally if real change is going take place. The UK, being one of the world’s leaders in democracy and equality, must take a front line role in helping end these equalities. Using our power and influence it could be possible for the UK government to lead on significant change, putting pressure on developing countries to make essential amendments to their constitutions so more girls can live lives free from fear.

Ruth

International Women's Day - Why Do We Still Not Have More Female MPs?

Today is international women's day and so I thought it would be apt to kick off our blog with a discussion of female representation in politics today.
I was asked today by a boy in my politics class why I'm a feminist, because 'surely that is saying women are better than men, and what you want is equality.' This is a common misconception, my point is not that women are better than men (although they are) my point is that they can be just as intelligent/make just as good decisions/lead the country just as well as men and therefore deserve to make up more than the 22% of parliament than they currently do. He followed this up by saying that we are equal in law so it doesn't matter. This is true and obviously the situation for women in Britain is far superior than in many countries, but the idea that because of this we should sit back in complacent gratitude is a little insulting.
There is continuing need for change and nowhere is this more publicly obvious than in our parliament. The need for more female MPs is widely accepted and it is a good thing that efforts are being made to change this, but it is the manner in which politicians take up this task which I find irritating. It is as if female MPs have become statistics - a certain number of them are required in order to fill up the quotas and to make the party look better on paper, and this is made out to be a chore. It shows the state of our political system that all women short lists or A-lists should have had to be introduced. Why in a society as modernised and apparently equal as ours should local parties have to be cajoled into choosing a woman to represent them; I recognise the need for these mechanisms but that need should not exist.
Fundamentally all it comes down to is a power struggle between the two, still heavily male dominated, main parties. Miliband recently asked Cameron in PMQs about the lack of women on his front bench, rightly so as there were none. But he did this with a front bench packed unusually full of women, clearly in preparation for the question so that he could make a favourable comparison. It is this - when women are used by the male leaders of the parties merely as a method of political point scoring against their male opponents - that angers me more than the lack of women, because it shows no genuine desire for change or further equality but just the need to win a few more votes. A more cynical person would say that that is just how politics works, but I don't think that should be the case, or at least not where gender equality is concerned, and international women's day should be taken as a chance to start to try and change some of these long entrenched prejudices which are stopping women from entering parliament, but the question is how.

Caitlin