AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY TOPIC LAW102

LAW102

ASSIGNMENT 1 TOPIC OPTION 2 AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY TOPIC

WORD COUNT: 788

1. Legal Issue

The primary legal issue is whether setting the minimum age of criminal responsibility to age 10 is appropriate. The article highlights the ethical and legal concerns when considering whether young children should be held criminally responsible and elicits some concerns about the potential harm to their rights in the criminal justice system.[1] A reasonable counter argument is that this age is too low given childrens cognitive and moral development.

2. Legal Issue Key Points

The article informs that the NT government has reduced the MACR from 12 to 10 to address criminals by youth. While the government claims that this is for the preservation of communities and as a deterrent for youth offending, opponents such as human rights associations, Indigenous peoples, and doctors oppose this policy, claiming that the Aboriginal children will be most affected.[2] Testimonies provided also indicate that detention compromises the welfare, safety, and rehabilitation of children and is a costly system that does not prevent reoffending. Its critics argue that this law-based, rather than evidence-based, approach stems from a populist law and order mentality.

3. Counterargument

A counter argument in favour of the current MACR states that immediate prevention is necessary to curb the rising youth criminogenic culture in the NT. They claim that tougher measures like incarceration cause an upstream effect to decrease the incidents of burglary and other acts of violence.[3] Further, they argue that alternative interventions might not be as effective when trying to deter criminal conduct.

4. Relevance for Australian people

The issue of criminal responsibility for children is significant for Australian society as it touches on childrens rights, the effectiveness of rehabilitation, and societal values around punishment versus support. This is especially pertinent in Indigenous communities, mainly because it regrettably perpetuates injustice to Black Aboriginals in the judicial system. Furthermore, addressing the MACR could help Australia align more closely with international standards that focus more on rehabilitation rather than punitive approaches.

5. Authors Opinion

One can sense the authors' disapproval of the NT government for having benchmarked the MACR lower than the neighbouring states. They comprise opinions from experts, statistical data, and Indigenous leaders, which are opposed to the law and its impact on the children as being negative. This can be seen by the overall theme of the article, quotes and references used by the author to support the case.[4]

6. Relevant Statute/Bill

Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT), this legislation is crucial as it sets out the legal principles governing criminal liability, including the minimum age for criminal responsibility.

7. Section(s) of the chosen Statute/Bill

The minimum age of criminal responsibility is stated in the Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT), specifically Sections 38(1) and 38(2). Section 38(1) is important because it determines the age from which a child is legally deemed to have acted on his or her own volition. While section 38(2) introduces the presumption of doli incapax for children aged 10 to 14, demanding that the prosecution prove the child in question understood the profound consequences of their actions. Reducing this age from 12 to 10 retains the legal ability to prosecute younger children, which has immediate consequences on childrens treatment and may raise ethical issues.

8. Relevant Australian Case

R v LMW [1999] NSWSC 1343 examines prosecution of a 10-year-old for manslaughter, highlighting challenges in assessing intent and maturity underage of criminal responsibility laws.

9. Reason and Relevance for Case Selection

This concerned a 10-year-old boy who was charged with manslaughter and therefore raised the issue of how best the criminal law deals with young children. It sheds light on how, in believable cases, or at least how confusing, it can be to picture criminal intention and the comprehensibility of the repercussions among children. The case illustrates the controversies regarding the right to MACR and justice, especially about childrens developmental maturity.

10. Relevant Journal Article

Thomas Crofts, A Brighter Tomorrow: Raising the Age of Criminal Responsibility (2019) 32 University of New South Wales Law Journal 1129.

11. Summary of Journal Article

Thomas Crofts article provides a detailed analysis of the age of criminal responsibility in Australia, emphasising the need for reform and focuses on why the MACR should be held to international human rights laws. It points out the incapacity of children under fourteen years of age to comprehend criminal premeditation, suggesting that it would be unfair to prosecute them as committing serious crimes. It claims that early involvement in criminal justice results in a high chance of repeating the same offence and may result in poor education, health problems and joblessness. Also, Crofts supports restorative justice and community-based sanctions as more appropriate forms of punishment than imprisonment. The methods highlighted here are those of reform and dealing with the reasons behind youth crime, so they incorporate positive long-term values for children and the community overall.