Pro and con: Two experts weigh in on either side of the debate on raising the age of criminal responsibility.
Pro and con: Two experts weigh in on either side of the debate on raising the age of criminal responsibility.
Kathleen Marshall
RAISE AGE TO 12
Scotland's treatment of child offenders brings us both praise and condemnation on the international stage. We are praised for our welfare-based children's hearing system which deals with most children under 16 who commit crimes.
Serious offenders can still be prosecuted in adult courts. Yet this applies to children from age eight and up and Scotland is condemned internationally for this exceptionally low age of criminal responsibility. It is lower than the rest of the UK, where the age is 10, and much lower than most other countries.
The UN has said that the absolute minimum should be 12 and encourages states to raise it beyond that. The Scottish Law Commission recommended in 2001 that the age be raised to 12, but this has never been taken forward.
It also said we should stop calling it the "age of criminal responsibility" and change it to the "minimum age for prosecution".
This emphasises the fact that what we are talking about is not whether children of that age can tell the difference between right and wrong, but how we should respond when they commit offences.
Labelling eight-year-old children as criminals is of little help to anyone and runs the risk of stigmatising them for life. Children of this age who do things that are wrong need help, not condemnation.
Clearly the low age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is unacceptable and - as the Lord Advocate has also said recently - needs urgently to be reviewed. The need for a review was highlighted by debates around the current Sexual Offences Bill (due its second reading soon) which has the potential to criminalise children as young as eight as sex offenders.
There would be serious implications for them later in life, even when they are dealt with through the hearings system on offence grounds rather than prosecuted in the courts.
I hope that ongoing debate around these issues will prompt some real progress towards fully adopting the UN standards into Scots law, a crucial step if we are to truly respect and value our children and look forward to peaceful and respectful communities.
Kathleen Marshall is Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People.
Les Gray
KEEP AGE AT 8
EVERY generation blames the youth of today for most minor crime and disorder and says things have never been so bad. The reality is quite different; it is no worse now than it was.
Razor gangs, rockers, teddy boys, mods, punk rockers and skinheads were blamed then for what hoodies are castigated for now.
In the past, youth crime would be dealt with by means of swift summary justice, dispensed by a "society guardian" or other well-minded individual who would report the matter to the youth's parents, who would deal with it as they saw fit.
However, we no longer have society guardians apart from the police. And by the time it is reported to the police, it is too late - the crime has been committed and will be reported and acted upon.
In the past, society guardians would have included the schoolteacher commanding respect from his or her pupils, the bus/rail conductor who would insist on good behaviour on public transport, the usher at the cinema, the swimming pool attendant, the school crossing person, and the various youth organisation leaders who kept young people in check.
These people are now missing from society. Some would argue it is to all of our detriment.
We have youths of all ages committing crime. Some are under the age of criminal responsibility, but most are aged between eight and 16. The majority will be one-time offenders who will learn their lesson.
However, the minority of persistent offenders will be responsible for a large proportion of reported crime.
So what difference would it make if any, if we allowed the age of criminal responsibility to be raised to 12?
The first category of one-time offenders would largely be unaffected. However, increasing the age of criminal responsibility would be an invite for the minority of persistent youth offenders to commit crimes with impunity up to the age of 12, thereby setting them up for a life of crime.
I cannot see what, if any, benefit there would be in such a change, apart from the fact that the figures for youths committing crimes would be reduced as they would be under the age of criminal responsibility.
Les Gray is chairman of the Strathclyde branch of the Scottish Police Federation.
