Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10 is too young to be in court
#1
Lots of noise from the right recently about how they're going to 'get tough' on young offenders involved in ram raids. Which is all very well to gain votes but the reality could be very different.
While no one wants idiot kids doing stupid stuff like ram raids, most of us might not be comfortable with children of 10 or 12 being prosecuted especially since that would be against the Geneva convention.

Eventually I suspect we may have to take another look at how we decide when someone becomes fully responsible for their actions, now that the Dubnedin study has established that human brains aren't fully functioning until the mid 20s. In particular the area of the brain which deals with consequences of actions.

Perhaps we could instead, support & help parents to be better parents.


https://www.waikato.ac.nz/news-opinion/m...onsibility


"This comes not long after a recent rise in ram raids and smash-and-grab burglaries by young offenders was called a “tsunami” of youth crime by the National Party police spokesperson.
But just how the justice system should deal with children and teenagers remains a complex question – especially when it comes to the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

In fact, New Zealand is among a number of countries criticised by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child for retaining an unacceptably low age of criminal responsibility.
It’s now more than 60 years since the Crimes Act set the age at ten years. Children younger than that, the law says, are incapable of forming criminal intent. Since that law was written, we have learned a lot more about the brain development of children and adolescents, and how their decision-making abilities differ from adults.

Given this also affects their ability to comprehend the court process itself, and therefore their right to a fair trial, is it time New Zealand revisited the minimum age and the reasons for raising it?
Even politicians calling for a tougher approach to youth crime seem to agree that keeping children out of the criminal justice system should be a priority, particularly for young and first-time offenders.

Currently, children aged over ten but under 14 are subject to the adult criminal justice system. But they may avoid conviction if it can be shown they didn’t know their actions were wrong or illegal."
in order to be old & wise, you must first be young & stupid. (I'm still working on that.)
Reply
#2
Perhaps their parents should be standing next to them? I would suggest that if a 10 year old is involved in burglary and ram raids that their parental influence is sorely lacking.
Reply
#3
Or parental influence responsible.
In and out of jobs, running free
Waging war with society
Reply
#4
At that age? Yes, parents have to be involved. Later on though, the teens? They have minds of their own and parents can go to hell over their decisions.

I know, I had one once.
Reply
#5
(23-10-2023, 02:10 PM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: At that age? Yes, parents have to be involved. Later on though, the teens? They have minds of their own and parents can go to hell over their decisions.

I know, I had one once.

I know, I was one once. Tongue
Corgi Wan Kenobi is watching you!
Reply
#6
(23-10-2023, 12:31 PM)Wainuiguy Wrote: Perhaps their parents should be standing next to them?  I would suggest that if a 10 year old is involved in burglary and ram raids that their parental influence is sorely lacking.

Which was very much the point being made; that by helping & supporting parents rather than putting ever more harsh penalties in place is likely to work far better.  Though not to the extent of putting parents in the court & then giving them those harsh penalties, more along the lines of what Celia Lashlie achieved.

https://www.celialashlie.nz/




If as a society we can accept the need to maintain a vital interest in every child born in this country every moment of every day & work tpgether to achieve that aim, the need for more prisons & more youth justice residences will abate, the number of people whose lives are forever changed by the commission of a violent offence (or ram raid) will lessen & the magic that sits inside every child born in NZ will have the opportunity to flourish.”
Celia Lashlie


https://www.amandamillar.co.nz/blog/celi...ocumentary
in order to be old & wise, you must first be young & stupid. (I'm still working on that.)
Reply
#7
At that age, it should be their parents in court!
Reply
#8
lets just leave them until they are 16 and punish them then, could start by sterilisation so they dont pass on their feral ways
yes i know
Reply
#9
(24-10-2023, 03:50 PM)jim157 Wrote: lets just leave them until they are 16 and punish them then, could start by sterilisation so they dont pass on their feral ways
Eugenics went seriously out of favour after that guy with the toothbrush moustace adopted the practice.
Reply
#10
(24-10-2023, 03:50 PM)jim157 Wrote: lets just leave them until they are 16 and punish them then, could start by sterilisation so they dont pass on their feral ways

'It's life, Jim. But not as you'd know it.'...

Big Grin Tongue Big Grin
Reply
#11
(24-10-2023, 05:30 PM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote:
(24-10-2023, 03:50 PM)jim157 Wrote: lets just leave them until they are 16 and punish them then, could start by sterilisation so they dont pass on their feral ways

'It's life, Jim. But not as you'd know it.'...

Big Grin Tongue Big Grin

might be your life
yes i know
Reply
#12
(24-10-2023, 03:50 PM)jim157 Wrote: lets just leave them until they are 16 and punish them then, could start by sterilisation so they dont pass on their feral ways

Lets start with you then eh...

ANY damn fool advocating sterilisation for any group should be first in line since they're clearly deeply ignorant on the subject & the tragic damage done. Angry Dodgy
in order to be old & wise, you must first be young & stupid. (I'm still working on that.)
Reply
#13
(24-10-2023, 06:21 PM)Lilith7 Wrote:
(24-10-2023, 03:50 PM)jim157 Wrote: lets just leave them until they are 16 and punish them then, could start by sterilisation so they dont pass on their feral ways

Lets start with you then eh...

ANY damn fool advocating sterilisation for any group should be first in line since they're clearly deeply ignorant on the subject & the tragic damage done. Angry Dodgy

sure just wait until one of their offspring climbs in your window one night and bashes your head in with a bat you might change your tune
yes i know
Reply
#14
(08-11-2023, 03:32 PM)jim157 Wrote:
(24-10-2023, 06:21 PM)Lilith7 Wrote: Lets start with you then eh...

ANY damn fool advocating sterilisation for any group should be first in line since they're clearly deeply ignorant on the subject & the tragic damage done. Angry Dodgy

sure just wait until one of their offspring climbs in your window one night and bashes your head in with a bat you might change your tune
So, who is it that you're referring to when you say "their"? Who exactly are you advocating sterilisation for?
Reply
#15
(08-11-2023, 03:32 PM)jim157 Wrote:
(24-10-2023, 06:21 PM)Lilith7 Wrote: Lets start with you then eh...

ANY damn fool advocating sterilisation for any group should be first in line since they're clearly deeply ignorant on the subject & the tragic damage done. Angry Dodgy

sure just wait until one of their offspring climbs in your window one night and bashes your head in with a bat you might change your tune

You seem to be assuming that neither i nor any family, have ever been the victim of a crime. Wrongly.

You do not have the right to iimpose sterilisation on any other person against their will & nor does anyone else. And long may it remain that way because if you were to take the trouble to do some actual reading on forced sterilisation, you'd learn about the widespread damage done by idiots who decided that 'those people' shouldn't have children. Dodgy
in order to be old & wise, you must first be young & stupid. (I'm still working on that.)
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)