Suchergebnisse

The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales remains one of the lowest in the world after it is raised in Scotland from eight to 12

introduction: Age of criminal responsibility is of importance in criminal cases such as physical and sexual assault, kidnapping, etc. Under Indian laws ages related to criminal responsibility are 5, 7, 12 and 18 years. Under 82 IPC nothing is an offence which is done by a child below 7 years of age.Objectives: To establish correlation between age of appearance of pisiform bone and age of criminal responsibility in children of Purvanchal Region.Material and Methods: The present cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Forensic Medicine in collaboration with the Department of Radiodiagnosis, Government Medical College and Super Facility Hospital, Azamgarh. The study population consisted of children from 0 to15 years coming to Paediatrics OPD of Government Medical College and Super Facility Hospital, Azamgarh from October 2018 to April 2019.Results:In this study the mean age of appearance of pisiform bone is 124.84±23.04 months. The youngest subject showing the appearance of pisiform bone is 7 years and 8 months old female. The oldest subject showing non appearance of pisiform bone is 12 years and 1 month old male.Conclusion:The appearance of pisiform bone in X-ray hand and wrist joint is a good indicator of 7 years and 12 years of age that are related to criminal responsibility.

For many decades there have been calls for an increase in the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) in Australia and in other common law jurisdictions. Despite this the State and Territory governments have largely been resilient to making any change. Such reluctance may, however, be set to change in Australia with the Government of the Northern Territory endorsing 'in principle' an increase in the MACR in the Northern Territory. This article examines the likelihood of the MACR being raised in the Northern Territory and theimpact this may have on the rest of Australia. It also considers what such an increase would mean for the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax which currently applies from the age of 10 until a child's 14th birthday. This article argues that a higher minimum age level of criminal responsibility than 12 would be preferable but that this is a good step that will put the Northern Territory in line with other common law countries which have already made this change. It will also increase pressure on other Australian States and Territories and other countries which follow the traditional common law approach to raise their MACR. Finally, it argues that if the MACR is raised only to 12 the presumption of doli incapax should be retained for those aged 12 and 13.

The increase in peer violence and juvenile delinquency from year to year has kept the question of minimum age of criminal responsibility open around the world. States, not only in different parts of the world, but also within smaller regions territorially connecting them, have been developing various criminal legal responses to this question. Reasons behind such a variety lie in circumstances of economic, social, cultural, religious, political, and even political nature. In theory and practice, two opposing concepts can be distinguished – the so-called repressive and holistic concepts. Advocates of the first concept believe that a strict criminal policy is the safest way toward decreasing criminality among children and minors. On the other side, supporters of the holistic approach believe children in early age cannot understand the meaning of their actions, that is why lowering the age of criminal responsibility would introduce children to the criminal legal system too early when society could take timely measures that would prevent children from adopting a criminal pattern of behaviour. Using the comparative law method, as well as other qualitative and quantitative methods necessary for a productive analysis and deduction of valid conclusions, in this paper we aim to point up key aspects of the differences between the repressive and holistic approach to determining the minimum age of criminal responsibility. The final result is a firmly established belief that it is necessary to give advantage to the approach that does not see the children and minors drawn into the criminal milieu as part of the problem but as part of the solution.

Whatever else may have changed with the election of the coalition government, the new administration shares with its Labour predecessor a resolute opposition to any suggestion that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised from its current ten years of age. Indeed, the similarity of responses, on this issue, either side of the election is striking.

PurposeThe minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) was set at ten years old in 1963. Since then a deeper appreciation of children's rights and understanding of their unique capabilities and experiences has been gained. This paper seeks to examine the implications of these developments for our understanding of this MACR.Design/methodology/approachResearch is reviewed that illuminates questions about children's culpability, their competence to participate in the criminal justice system (CJS) and the consequences of criminalising them at a young age. Recent understandings of how children's rights apply to the MACR are also summarised.FindingsDevelopmental science and human rights perspectives are inconsistent with a MACR no younger than 12 years.Originality/valueThe paper is one of the first to extensively apply developmental science research to the MACR. The author finds that although a just and rehabilitative CJS may be achievable in the case of most adolescent defendants, this is an unrealistic goal for younger children who instead require a welfare‐based system that addresses underlying causes of antisocial behaviour, facilitates accountability and ensures child protection.

The proposal to amend the minimum age of criminal responsibility has elicited polarized reactions in the Philippines. On one side are the politicians led by President Duterte, who are behind a bill lowering the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 9 for two reasons: school-age thieves and drug-runners must be "taught responsibility" and that the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Law is "soft" in dealing with children in conflict with the law (CICL). On the other side are human rights advocates vehemently opposing the bill on the ground that studies in the social sciences link emotional and mental immaturity to youth offending, not to mention the Philippines' binding commitment to protect children's rights when it signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child. At the forefront, are the barangay officials, the first authorities encountered by the CICL upon apprehension, where the crucial decision is made: amicable settlement or State involvement. A survey among 30 barangay officials reveals that punishment is favored to deter re-offense. The lack of parental supervision is perceived as the root cause, but it is this same negligence that convinces them that handling the CICL should be a national affair, hence, their approval for lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility, and the children's subsequent detention in government facilities. This study recommends that barangay officials be re-oriented regarding the aptness of rehabilitation for the CICL, particularly the framings of discourses from the social sciences, while also advancing a critique of the justice system itself critically through a Gramscian lens.