from yesterday's newspaper

"...Federal Attorney-General Christian Porter and his state colleagues have signed off on a harebrained investigation into raising the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to as high as 16.......blah, blah,blah....The basis of all this, apparently, is that people under the age of 16 might not have a full understanding of what is right and wrong and are therefore not capable of committing a crime."



ARE YOU KIDDING ME???
NOT CAPABLE??
 DON'T KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG??

The columnist who wrote this goes on to say: "This idea should have been ripped up within 10 seconds of it being proposed. Do our governments really want to give a free pass to youths to do whatever they please and not face the consequences? It would be a licence to riot."

I agree. But go ahead and discuss this in comments if you wish.

If anyone would like me to copy the entire article I can do that too.

Comments

  1. What absolute nonsense. Children know from a young age that their actions can hurt people or animals and that it is wrong. They know stealing is wrong. They know breaking things deliberately is wrong. The knowledge may not stop some of them, but they do know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew; with correct parenting even mentally challenged children know right from wrong.
      I really don't know why such a thing has even been considered by the AG, what was he thinking?

      Delete
  2. Young people, i believe, come into a state of accountability (true, deep comprehension of right from wrong, and the ability to choose whether or not to do right) at some point in their teen years. For each it may be a bit different timing depending upon their personality, development, maturity, etc., but it certainly is before 16 for the majority of them.

    Since this has nothing to do with my country, i am speaking in general terms, it is up to each nation to make such decisions and i will stay out of that part of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. messymimi; true deep comprehension does take time, but if the basics are taught from a young age, children do understand very early on the things that are wrong and should never be done.

      Delete
  3. Many children have not developed empathy for others and they do not always understand actions have consequences. In the US they generally treat juvenile offenders less strictly that adult offenders. I agree with this in general, but certainly I do not believe in a free pass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. joeh; many children not developing empath for others is a sign of the times I fear. Too many have been mollycoddled and made to feel they are the most important person ever. When "we" were young, I'm sure we didn't think the entire world revolved around us and our wants.

      Delete
  4. What's the world coming to!
    Children from an early age know right from wrong by instinct, some need teaching by parents. Children mostly don't 'fear' or realise that 'death' mean never coming back until it happens.
    Each child/teenager is different.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Margaret-whiteangel; I agree every child is different, but with good parenting, all children know the basic right and wrong rules quite early on and the learning should continue throughout their school years.

      Delete
  5. They know right from wrong. They just don't think they'll have consequences for it. "I'm just a kid. They can't do anything to me." That seems to be their attitude here. Getting sent to "juvy," for a few months, or at worst staying until they're released at age 18, isn't like facing life in prison.

    I've heard older kids talk about how they need to get something done before they're 18. Fighting, for example. A younger teen might try to get an 18-year-old to fight, knowing that the older kid can go to jail for battery, but he'll just get juvy, if anything.

    Still, each kid and each crime should be dealt with on an individual basis, with consequences in place, depending on the severity of the crime.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Val; yes they do know right from wrong and that should include inciting a fight between him/herself and others or between others with him/herself as a bystander. I also don't agree that 18 is the age for undergoing trial as an adult. That should be determined by the severity of the crime, as many as young as 15 or 16 know very well what they've done. it's a minefield for sure, but we are too soft on criminals even of adult age, especially repeat offenders.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here children till the age of 18 are not tried as adults for crimes but they are not given a free pass either. There are detention centers for only the young where they are imprisoned and can remain until 18 depending on the sentence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Arkansas Patti; same here; remans centres for the young ones and adult trials once they turn 18. I think our remand centres (detention) are a bit too lenient with some kids going in and coming out almost as if they were still at home. Our adult sentencing is too lenient also. There are cases where leniency is a good thing, but far too many repeat offenders are walking away with a slap on the wrist. And they know right from wrong, they're just laughing at the law.

      Delete
  8. I uttered a few choice, appropriate words when I heard this on the news and read about it. What a load of B/S!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Seems like a step backward to me.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

the new kick-start diet

a lizard in your home is lucky, right?

Sunday Selections