10 Year Olds in Jail?

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

What should the law be for young offenders?

[geoffrey]

I think that 10 and 11 year olds are aware of their actions, and they needed to be treated as criminals.

That being said, jail isn't exactly the place for a youngin. If it were sentencing 10 and 11 year olds to programs that would help them get back into society, then ok. Just throwing them in the slammer to think about what they've done, it just doesn't work. Studies show that kids in jail are more likely to become career criminals, let's not start earlier.

That being said, at 10 or 11 or even right up to 18, I think the parents need to bare some responsibility and be charged with said crime themselves. It's ridiculous to assume that parents were completely independant of the actions of their 10 year old.

[Wilber]

Part of growing up is learning there are consequences for your actions. You can't treat them as adult criminals but you can't just keep letting them off either. All that does is teach them crime does pay. Inconvenience the crap out of the little buggers as soon as they step out of line. Take away their weekends and other stuff they value for a month or so, right at the beginning before they become a real problem. Make them work off a little restitution. It won't work for all of them but I bet it will for most kids.

[newbie]

How low are you willing to drop that number - 9 year olds, 8, 7,..........

[geoffrey]

How low are you willing to drop that number - 9 year olds, 8, 7,..........

Nope just 10. I thought the slippery slope argument was the one only used by our side.

[Wilber]

How low are you willing to drop that number - 9 year olds, 8, 7,..........

Kids always have to learn that there are consequences to every action. If their parents cannot handle them, the State is doing them no favours by not doing anything if they get out of control. There are lots of options in between putting them in jail and doing nothing. They don't need to be the same for a 7 year old as for a 12 year old.

[jdobbin]

I think that 10 and 11 year olds are aware of their actions, and they needed to be treated as criminals.

That being said, jail isn't exactly the place for a youngin. If it were sentencing 10 and 11 year olds to programs that would help them get back into society, then ok. Just throwing them in the slammer to think about what they've done, it just doesn't work. Studies show that kids in jail are more likely to become career criminals, let's not start earlier.

That being said, at 10 or 11 or even right up to 18, I think the parents need to bare some responsibility and be charged with said crime themselves. It's ridiculous to assume that parents were completely independant of the actions of their 10 year old.

Where should they serve their sentences?

[jdobbin]

Nope just 10. I thought the slippery slope argument was the one only used by our side.

There are plenty of crimes committed by under 10 year olds.

[jdobbin]

Part of growing up is learning there are consequences for your actions. You can't treat them as adult criminals but you can't just keep letting them off either. All that does is teach them crime does pay. Inconvenience the crap out of the little buggers as soon as they step out of line. Take away their weekends and other stuff they value for a month or so, right at the beginning before they become a real problem. Make them work off a little restitution. It won't work for all of them but I bet it will for most kids.

I think Britain has something for young offenders but I am really not that familiar with their system.

[jbg]

That being said, at 10 or 11 or even right up to 18, I think the parents need to bare some responsibility and be charged with said crime themselves. It's ridiculous to assume that parents were completely independant of the actions of their 10 year old.

Seriously, that is a brilliant idea. I've never thought of it, but if some constitutional problems could be overcome (in my country at least) it should be done.

[WestViking]

They are not just innocent children, they are unsupervised CRIMINAL brats. Ten year olds engaged in arson and auto theft are not normal or innocent children and their behaviour is not to be tolerated - by anyone.

These modern-day ‘Artful Dodgers’ have to be placed in a properly supervised and caring environment for the protection of society. The courts need to be able to hold parents responsible and issue orders making said parents pay restitution for damages by their offensive offspring.

We are tired of imbeciles who will not discipline their offspring and insist that no one else can speak to let alone discipline these unmannered, destructive and at times criminal little monsters. Some parents don’t want their children disciplined in school or on the playground, which is their right – however they then have the responsibility for cleaning up the mess and paying restitution for damages.

If parents won’t parent then society will step in and do it for them.

[jbg]

They are not just innocent children, they are unsupervised CRIMINAL brats. Ten year olds engaged in arson and auto theft are not normal or innocent children and their behaviour is not to be tolerated - by anyone.

*snip*

If parents won’t parent then society will step in and do it for them.

Speaking as a parent of a 9 and 10 year old, I 100% agree.

[seabee]

Treating 10-years old as adult criminal implies that they can assume full responsabiliy for their acts. By the same reasoning, age of consent for sexual behaviour should also be lowered to age 10.

[Charles Anthony]

How low are you willing to drop that number - 9 year olds, 8, 7,..........

I think that is a paramount question. We have to answer it otherwise our policy for 10 year olds will eventually be out-dated and we have to go back to square one.

The courts need to be able to hold parents responsible and issue orders making said parents pay restitution for damages by their offensive offspring.

I think this is the best suggestion. It covers all of the bases and eliminates the need for a cut-off age.

Beyond clothing and shelter, most kids just want attention. If parents do not give it and the child gets it in nefarious ways, the parent will have to "pay" attention in a different way.

[watching&waiting]

This does not mean 10 year olds are going to be in jail in large numbers or even that they will be at all. It does give the courts an earlier time in which to intervene on behalf of the child, especially if the parents are not teaching them properly or can not get control of them to instill proper rules of law. By the time they are 12 they will be less likely to respond to guidance.

As for saying then let 10 be the age of consent goes, that is the outlook of the pedophiles, not thinking people. Most children know the difference between right and wrong by age 10, and for those that do not, there is not much time left before ouberty when as we all know thta they kn ow everything on their own. So to me the lowering of the age of responsiblity is not an issue of being able to jail a child, but it is an age where the government gets to come in and guide the child if they believe the parents uncapable or unwilling to do the right thing.

[Argus]

Treating 10-years old as adult criminal implies that they can assume full responsabiliy for their acts. By the same reasoning, age of consent for sexual behaviour should also be lowered to age 10.

I don't believe anyone suggested treating 10 year olds like adults. The problem, as I understand it, is that they are being used by gang members as safe drug couriers and holders because the cops can't charge them with anything. The police want more options in dealing with these young criminals, esp those whose parents couldn't care less if little Leon is out on the corner holding drugs while his big brother makes the sales.

[Michael Hardner]

I think you're right Argus.

If the Conservatives really want to make this change, then they need to provide a new infrastructure of support for kids at risk and not just another branch of the criminal justice system, cross bred with daycare.

Punishment doesn't work when you're dealing with a certain type of person, and wholesale lifestyle redesign is what's needed. Of course that costs a lot more money than the punishment/welfare cycle - but only in the short term.

[August1991]

I don't believe anyone suggested treating 10 year olds like adults. The problem, as I understand it, is that they are being used by gang members as safe drug couriers and holders because the cops can't charge them with anything.

There's more involved, Argus.

On February 12, 1993, at a shopping mall in a Liverpool suburb, two ten-year-old boys enticed James Bulger, aged two, away from his mother. They took him on a four-kilometre ramble through Merseyside; reaching a railyard, they battered him to death with iron and stones and left him on the tracks. Both came from violent, broken homes well known to the police, and had done things an older child might have been arrested for.

Colby Cosh

We've had 17 year olds involved in plots to behead the PM and blow up Parliament who, in theory, could be back out on the street without a record when they turn 18. Clearly, we have to deal with young criminals differently. Toews' suggestion of reducing the age of criminal responsibility from 12 to 10 is a start on making changes and I suspect it's a trial balloon in line with Harper's five priorities. Summer is a good time to float such ideas.

I frankly don't have clear ideas on how the State should deal with kids who commit crimes. For example, a headline in yesterday's Montreal newspaper stated that 1 in 5 schoolkids carried a knife to school. Should we do as in the US and install metal detectors?

[Michael Hardner]

Should we do as in the US and install metal detectors?

That doesn't really address the problems that caused the phenomen to happen, though.

[Shakeyhands]

correct me if I am wrong, but if a person younger than 12 commits any kind of crime they are held to account and are often ordered to counselling etc, what they aren't ordered to is any period of incarceration or having these thoings held against them in the form of a youth record. What does lowering the YOA age down to 10 really do?

[Live From China]

Watched the CBC news last night. England and Scotland have laws that can hold a 10-year old criminally responsible. In the state of Oklahoma (get this ) this age drops dramatically to 7!

Ten-year olds in jail? I am just not sure. Then again, when I see the case of the poor young child in the UK brutally murdered by 10-year old kids I wonder why they shouldn't be incarcerated, or even swinging from the end of a rope. My apologies to the more-sensitive people out there, but this case sickens me. Yes, most kids that age are just adventurous, silly, energetic, sometimes stupid and lovable, but what scares me about Canada is we are also seeing the growth of a generation of criminal punks who are just a little too confident and a little too sure of their rights.

I think we need to start making the lives of those in 10 - 18 age bracket extremely miserable when they decide they wish to be criminals.

[Michael Hardner]

but what scares me about Canada is we are also seeing the growth of a generation of criminal punks who are just a little too confident and a little too sure of their rights.

Yes - this is what you are seeing, ie. on television. If statistics show that violent crime is decreasing, then maybe things aren't alarming as they appear on 24-hour network news. Emotional reactions are very human, but a country needs to be governed systematically and not reactively.

[kimmy]

This does not mean 10 year olds are going to be in jail in large numbers or even that they will be at all. It does give the courts an earlier time in which to intervene on behalf of the child, especially if the parents are not teaching them properly or can not get control of them to instill proper rules of law. By the time they are 12 they will be less likely to respond to guidance.

I agree with this line of thinking.

If kids are getting into criminal trouble at age 10, it's probably a good indication that they're headed in a direction that's not very good. There could be a variety of factors-- lack of parental supervision, abuse at home, unfit parents, mental illness or developmental problems, a problematic environment... whatever the case, when a kid singles themselves out for attention from law enforcement this early in life, it seems to me that finding out what went wrong earlier on would be much better than allowing the problem to continue and grow.

Of course, it would be dependent on the relevant authorities being able to provide the kind of help that these kids would need. Given the number of problems we hear about involving social services, it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence that adequate monitoring would occur.

-k

[Hicksey]

Kids are not stupid. They see we're moving toward a consequence free society and well within their nature will push the boundaries. We need this. Remember how liberals fought to take all the power of the parent away? Well, we're seeing the conequences with the new generation of youth today. Its time we reign them back in.

[jdobbin]

I think you're right Argus.

If the Conservatives really want to make this change, then they need to provide a new infrastructure of support for kids at risk and not just another branch of the criminal justice system, cross bred with daycare.

Punishment doesn't work when you're dealing with a certain type of person, and wholesale lifestyle redesign is what's needed. Of course that costs a lot more money than the punishment/welfare cycle - but only in the short term.

I haven't heard of any supporting infrastructure that is going with this so they would likely be locked up with older offenders.