Age of criminal responsibility?

[R1Geezer]

This was on the news over the weekend so I'm amazed no one has asked the question on here so here goes.

Is 10 fair enough or should it be rasied or lowered. The childrens commissionaer, Maggie Atkinson thinks it should be 12, and that the Bulger killers should not have been prosecuted.

I think it's fine as it is, what do you think ABers?

Should We Change The Age Of Criminal Responsibility?

This poll is closed.

Should the Age of Criminal Responsibility be changed?

• The age of Criminal Responsibility is fine as it is - 10 votes
• 38%
• The age of Criminal Responsibility should be raised - 9 votes
• 35%
• The age of Criminal Responsibility should be lowered - 7 votes
• 27%

See final stats

Stats until: 02:44 Fri 14th Mar 2025 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)

© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2025. All Rights Reserved.

[jake-the-peg]

I know Wikipedia can be wrong on things like that but they agree with me on it being Howard.

They also say

"The editors of The Sun newspaper handed a petition bearing nearly 280,000 signatures to Home Secretary Michael Howard, in a bid to increase the time spent by both boys in custody."

Because that's the proper way to determine verdicts isn't it? - have a publicity campaign - nowadays you'd do a phone-in and cash in at the same time!

[vulcan]

LucyThomas is so right.
As I related on a similar thread last week, two girls were jumping up and down on my car roof.They eventually, reluctantly, got down and one said to the other "don't worry, he can't touch us".they were six years old.

[Backdrifter]

Lucy Thomas - what makes you suggest 8? Why not 9, or 5 -7? What other reasons do you have apart from that there are estates with 'feral' children?

I don't ask these in a combative way, just that as I said, I don't know where to begin and I want an inkling of how other people have such firm ideas about something so subjective.

[Oneeyedvic]

///I believe that the age of criminal responsibility was set at 10 in Victorian times (I may be wrong) when children were much more innocent and didn't have the influences that today's children have. ///

In Victorian times, most children would be working to help support the family. This had the effect of passing a law in 1880 ensuring that children had to attend school from 6 to age 10.

Children age 9-11 could work 8 hours a day and 11 - 18 year olds could work a maximum of 12 hours a day. Children under 9 could not work. BUT this only applied to the Textile industry. Coal mines etc could have children from the age of 5 working in them.

Not sure what you think of the Victoria Era, but it certainly wasn't 'innocent'

[Quinlad]

I'm happy to sit on the fence here. Apart from relatives, neighbours and what I see on TV, I don't know enough ten year olds to judge.

Maggie Atkinson knows far more about child psychology than me. And I dare say, experts on the other side of the debate do too.

Happy for them to thrash it out rather than chucking emotive guesswork around.

[Oneeyedvic]

///We are in a situation where nine year olds laugh at the law because they know the police can't touch them.///

What sort of percentage of 9 year olds? How many in total? Where is your information source?

[AB Editor]

Hi everyone. I've just tried adding a poll to R1's question - let me know if there are any problems.

All the best,

Spare Ed

[Oneeyedvic]

True Lucy, they didn't.

But I will ask again, what percentage of 9 year olds you think are affected in this way for you to want to lower the age of responsibility.

[jake-the-peg]

Lucy - you seem to be talking in soundbites

And not making much sense - I don't think most children in Victorian times were particularly inocent.

Perhaps a few Dickins novels might help

[mike11111]

The age of criminal responsibility was not set at 10 in Victorian times. Until 1963 it was 8.