Law - Age Of Criminal Responsibility - Essay Writing - Assessment Answer

Law Assignment

Assignment Task

Evaluate the argument that the age of criminal responsibility is too low in Australia?

Introduction

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the argument that the age of criminal responsibility is too low in Australia. Criminal responsibility describes the achievement of an age at which a man is trusted not to overlook the consequences of his actions so far as to realize others can be harmed and therefore must take responsibility for those actions. In Australia, the age of criminal responsibility is the age limit below which a child is perceived to be incapable of committing a crime consciously. The defense is infancy. There is a uniform age of criminal responsibility across all states of Australia. The age limit is 10 years.

Evaluation of the argument that the age of criminal responsibility is too low in Australia:

UN Recommendations are significant in the context of criminal responsibility. In 2007, the Committee on the Rights of the Child stated that, the age of criminal responsibility, depending on the state, should not lie under the age of 12. A lower age limit is considered to be internationally unacceptable, and the States should be encouraged in addition, to set an age limit that is higher than 12 years. The need to establish a minimum age of criminal responsibility is due to the fact that man is not a criminal from birth, and reaches an age when he or she is able to realize the social essence of their actions. Formation of representations about the social value of the individual objects takes a long time if certain ideas about the inadmissibility of causing harm to health and property are absent in a young age (5-6 years). As a whole it is impossible to allocate significant time difference in the intellectual and social development of different people; it is possible to set a maximum age at which a person is considered able to be aware of the social importance of all objects protected by criminal law.

The legislator does not function arbitrarily while setting the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Modern researches allow to allocate: chronological (passport), biological (functional), social (civilian) and psychological (mental) age. The criminal law is primarily focused upon chronological age (although in some cases it may take into account the psychological age). In establishing the age of criminal responsibility one should take into account the data of psychology, physiology, pedagogy, allowing to establish a person's ability to judge the factual and social significance of their own behavior. The question of the election of a certain minimum age of criminal responsibility is a criminal policy; in every country and in every historical period, this has been decided in its own way, on the basis of the political, social and economic conditions existing at the moment.

In Australia, Doli incapax is a legal element that represents the consideration that a child is not capable of committing a crime with respect to the law. It is assumed that a child does not have adequate understanding to differentiate between right or wrong. This is valid for children who are under 10 years of age. For children under 10 years of age, criminal law is not applicable and only civil law care and welfare measures can be implemented in case of any crime. However, for children in the age group of 10-14, there is an option of rebuttal of the presumption that children are incapable of committing crime due to lack of understanding. If prosecutors can present adequate proof that a child in the age group of 10-14 is capable of committing a crime and had adequate understanding, Doli incapax can be rebutted and the child must take criminal responsibility. The prosecution needs to establish beyond any doubt that the child in question was aware that his or her actions were wrong in the eyes of the law, as well as with respect to morality and reason.

The law may also be able to differentiate the age of criminal responsibility by establishing under and over the age of criminal responsibility for the individual compounds. It is also proposed to provide a circumstance mitigating punishment for old age, as well as other measures that take into account the psychological and physiological characteristics of the elderly (the creation of special places serving of imprisonment and so on). Since criminal law sets the minimum age of criminal responsibility, it is necessary in each case to bring criminal responsibility of a minor accurately with respect to its age (day, month, year of birth). This can be done either with the use of existing instruments, and (when the document is not possible to establish the age) forensic examination. For example, in Russia, according to established case-law, a person is considered to have reached a certain age, not on the basis of his or her birthday; the law takes into account time zones of place of birth and place of commission of the offense. If the age is established by forensic medical evidence, the defendant's day of birth is considered to be the last day of the year, and if minimum and maximum possible age of the person are called, the court is based on the minimum age.

The issue related to the age of criminal responsibility in Australia is that as per some, the age of 10 is too low. It must be noted that this age is lower than the age recommended by the UN, which is 12 years. While this age may seem unfair and inhuman, it cannot be denied that child crime rates are high in Australia. In 2010, above 450 children lower than 14 years of age were convicted with crimes in NSW. Overall, children under 14 years of age stand for 5% of all crimes committed in Australia. Police have suspected that under 14s committed higher than 45000 crimes in the period between 2000 and 2010. The numbers have increased further in the last 5-6 years. In 2012, a 13 years old girl drove her mother’s car and led a chase. In the same year, 4 boys of ages 11, 12, 13 and 15 respectively, robbed a service station. Crimes like these are rampant and increasing the age of criminal responsibility would mean that these children would not be charged under criminal law.

Another example is the case, R v LMW[1999] NSWSC. In this case, a 10 year old boy was found guilty of dropping a 6 year old child into a river. In this case, the defense had highlighted that criminal intent was not there are the case of one of bullying that went wrong. It must be noted that the boy was aware that the child did not know how to swim. The doli incapax issue came up in this case, and ultimately, the defendant was not found to be guilty of manslaughter and it was established that he was incapable of crime and did not have a clear understanding of right or wrong. The boy was found not to be guilty as he was 10 years old, which is within the age limit of 10-14 years.

The case C v. DPP[1995] 2 all ER 43, is another example of the issue of age of criminal responsibility. In this case, a 12 year old boy was seen by the Police while he was trying to open the padlock of a bike with a crowbar. As soon as the police tried to approach him, he fled, and was ultimately caught. The appellant, the boy, pleaded innocent. There was much confusion as the law states that there needs to be adequate proof of criminal intent. The prosecutors stated that the fact that the boy fled from the police highlights that he was aware of the criminal aspect of his action. However, the House of Lords pointed out that the fleeing could be a naughty action and not necessarily a wicked one. As there was no concrete evidence of criminal intent, the charges were rebutted and the appellant was considered to be innocence. This case highlights the significance of concrete evidence in the issue of doli incapax in Australian law. However, it must be understood that raising the age limit will only enable a lot of child criminals to get away without any punishment. This will give them more opportunities to commit crime and increasing numbers of children with criminal intent will try to utilize the issue of doli incapax in their favor.

Conclusion:

This paper concludes that the age of criminal responsibility is not too low in Australia. There are countless instances of serious crimes committed by children under 14 years of age in Australia as well as in all other parts of the world. While 10 years might seem like too harsh a limit, there are a lot of cases where children in the age group of 10-14 years have committed heinous crimes. In many of these cases, the issue of doli incapax has helped in proving the children not guilty. Thus, there is no necessity of raising the age as there already is an option of rebutting criminal charges for children in the form of doli incapax.