There is much debate about the age of criminal responsibility in England. The current age in England is 10, but is 10 an age where children are aware of what is criminally right and wrong and what they believe is just being naughty? At the age of 10 are children too young to face trial and should the age of criminal responsibility be raised?

At the age of 10 all children have different rates of maturity development. Some children will understand the differences between right and wrong whereas others will not have an understanding or even know what the possible consequences of committing a crime may be. Most children, when prosecuted, don’t know themselves why they have committed a crime and in some cases wouldn’t have even been aware that what they were doing was criminal. Due to their immaturity they are also unable to provide a defence for themselves in court as they have no capacity to fully understand what they have done wrong. Minor offences which are committed by children are criminalised when a child may just feel like they are being naughty, not criminal. So how can a child refrain from committing a crime when they are unaware that what they are doing is criminal? Children are tried using the same procedure as adults, although it’s not done as harshly it can still be seen as unfair if they do not fully understand why they were wrong in the first instance. This is not the only problem when trying children in court. The language used in the court room can be complicated and hard to understand and very few do, making it harder for them to see what they have done wrong. However not all children are prosecuted as the police do have a discretion as to whether they prosecute and most of the time they don’t. The number of children under 13 appearing in court is minimal however it is good for children to be aware that at the age of 10 there is a possibility of prosecution for committing a crime.

10 can be seen as a ‘safe’ age of criminal responsibility for children who commit serious crimes as they are able to face prosecution, and young people need to be aware that this can happen if they do commit a crime. Although not all 10 year olds are aware of the differences between minor rights and wrongs, most are aware of the differences between major rights and wrongs. This is particular in more serious cases e.g. James Bulger where two 10 year old boys murdered a 3 year old. In this case the difference between right and wrong was very clear and they should have faced prosecution due to the severity of the crime, which they did. When children are tried in this way it should make them more aware of what could happen to them in the future and deter them from committing crime. Referral orders are also intended to deter young offenders and prevent reoffending and both are greatly beneficial to society in the hope that children will learn what is right and wrong.

There is much dispute as to whether the age of criminal responsibility should be changed. If the age of criminal responsibility was raised children would be aware that they wouldn’t be prosecuted at a younger age and they will know they are not criminally responsible for any crime they commit. Other European countries do have higher ages of criminal responsibility. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is just 8 years old which can be seen as far too young however children will be aware that any crime they commit at a young age has consequences and they can be prosecuted.

However the ultimate argument is what age of criminal responsibility is the right age? Is the age of criminal responsibility effective in ensuring that children are aware that they can be prosecuted for committing a crime at a young age?

- Rebecca