What is it about?

In 2010 two boys, aged 10 years, were convicted of the attempted rape of an eight year old girl in England. This article will consider the question of when is it fair to hold young people criminally responsible and to subject them to the full rigours of a criminal trial. It examines the assumption that children mature earlier and argues that the law needs to recognise that children may not yet be developed enough to understand the wrongfulness of what they do. The article adopts a comparative approach by examining the position in Scotland, Ireland and Guernsey. The article also considers the implications of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the reports of the UN Committee as well as examining American criminal jurisprudence

Featured Image

Why is it important?

The conviction of two primary school boys for the attempted rape of an eight year old girl in 2010 once again case raises the issue of how old someone must be before they know they are committing a crime. The two boys were both aged 10 years old at the time of the offence and are the youngest males ever to be prosecuted for rape in England and Wales. They had been accused of repeatedly assaulting the girl in a block of flats, a lift and a bin shed before taking her to a field and raping her in October 2009. During cross-examination via video the girl admitted lying to her mother about the incident and admitted that no rape had occurred. There was no other useful medical evidence, DNA evidence or forensic evidence. Nevertheless based on the evidence of an eight year old girl the two boys were convicted of attempted rape. The presiding Judge, Mr Justice Saunders, highlighted the need for lessons to be learned from this case. This case raises the question of whether child perpetrators should be treated as adults.

Perspectives

In England and Wales the age of criminal responsibility is set at 10 years. The current law thus assumes all children are sufficiently mature at this age to accept criminal responsibility for their behaviour. This article will consider the question of when is it fair to hold young people criminally responsible and to subject a young person to the full rigours of a criminal trial. It will examine the assumption that children mature earlier than in the past and argue that the law needs to recognise that children may not yet be developed enough to understand the wrongfulness of what they do. I will argue that the low age of criminal responsibility runs the risk of children being prosecuted for crimes they are too immature to fully understand. A child of 10 years can know that they are doing something wrong but not appreciate it is criminally wrong and thus not form the requisite intent, or mens rea, to be criminally responsible.

Professor Raymond Arthur
Northumbria University

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: Rethinking the Criminal Responsibility of Young People in England and Wales, European Journal of Crime Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, January 2012, Brill,
DOI: 10.1163/157181712x610460.
You can read the full text:

Read

Contributors

The following have contributed to this page