Criminal Liability of Youth Offenders PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Criminal Liability of Youth Offenders PDF

Description

Criminal Liability of Youth Offenders April 30, 2017, an 11-year-old boy took a gun he found lying around the house and aimed at another 12-year-old and uttered “say I won’t”. “You won’t” answered by someone but by then he already shot the girl leaving her bleeding from her wounds from her head and this led to her death a month after the incident which happened in Florida, USA, wherein 33 states have no minimum age of criminal liability automatically means the 11-year-old suspect can be indicted and will have to stand trial even though not knowing what lawyers, judges or prosecutors are and most likely to be goofing around unaware of the consequences he may face and will only realize after serving time in prison.

In the Philippines, the proposal in Congress to revert the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 9 years old, to make amendments in Republic Act Number 9344 or the “Juvenile Delinquency Act of 2006”, is morally unacceptable. Our group, therefore, will present some arguments why this ‘solution’ cannot be determined as a solution at all. There are studies showing that lowering the minimum age for criminal liability is indeed unethical, because by institutionalizing children by their wrongful act, we are merely prohibiting them to attain the betterment of themselves. These children are our future. Therefore, we should prioritize their sake and welfare. We should address their development rather than their mistakes as children.

Before addressing our formulated points, being against to this bill does not mean that we are baby-ing or pampering these children that are so-called “offenders” or “violators”. First thing is that these youths did not ‘intentionally’ want

to commit crimes. And we believe that it is not the youths’ problem, it is more of the elderly people who handle them. For example, drug trafficking. Instead of finding new better ways or opportunities, they keep on sticking to the worse ones. The involvement of these parents has a significant effect in shaping their children’s attainment. Only two results are expected: positive and negative [ CITATION Des03 \l 1033 ]. On a cultural relativism perspective, it was mentioned that people do things differently not because they chose to, or is something related to their personal decision. Part of their actions is shaped by their ‘culture’. Still, we condemn the use of children in serious crimes. It may seem normal to them because they were built and shaped that way. But in the long run, these children will realize that they do things that they do not mean to do because they do not have proper guidance.

Nietzsche expressed his concept of satisfaction by ‘pursuance’ with ‘efforts’ and ‘intensity’. In relation to this, it is ‘poverty’ — in which most children who are involved in juvenile crimes suffer from the harshness of this world brought by poverty. Cases show that it has detrimental effects. Huston et al. (1994) further described that the children in poverty may experience development problem especially

maladaptive

performances

that

was

arbitrated

by

parenting,

neighborhood, the structure of the family, and more. Investigations proved that long exposure, or persistent poverty, is associated to a higher level of connection in delinquency [ CITATION Bri02 \l 1033 ]. These findings made us conclude that we cannot put the blame on the children since cruelty of life circumstances coerced them to do such acts. Their parents, on the other side, who made the idea of benefiting them, did not achieve the ideal type of man (Ubermensch). They are

more likely to be described as “The Last Man” who obviously avoids difficulties and does not understand how essential ‘hardships’ are.

In the case of the 11-year-old boy indicted for manslaughter, we cannot diminish the fact that a person died. It is clear no matter of what angle you see it as a crime and is wrong. However, can we solely blame the boy for the accident he caused not knowing what really happened? A boy who never really intended to kill his playmate is prosecuted for murder. Does he have a motive to kill or did he learn from what he sees from the television? Can we also blame the TV shows or a movie that shows gruesome acts? However, one thing is if for sure; this accident which is caused by improper handling of the firearms of the owner ended not only 1 life but 2 lives. The girl who died and the boy, whose life will forever be tainted by this accident. He will have to spend his precious prime years in a correctional facility for a crime he did not intended to do and was only a result of an impulse of his instincts where a gun is used to shoot a person. But we cannot do anything as the US legally can detain him for his wrongful act.

In Thailand, criminal liability begins when a child reaches the age of seven and older. Around 2006-2008 the number of children aged between 7 to 12, is more than 1,083 charged with crimes, and ages 7 to 10 are 234. Moreover, the collective data of what causes the crime and the treatment they must receive are being analyzed. However, the supporting system for the children proposed that the family and children didn’t receive sufficient support to help them cope with the circumstances, but rather most of the children manifested symptoms of attachment concerns, distress, and in the worst-case scenario is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

(PTSD). Moreover, most staff or workers do not have adequate knowledge and skills on how to handle children who are involved in these crimes.

The effectiveness of this bill shows none since the support system must be well established and in place. The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) also opposed the bill since human beings at the age of one to seventeen are called children — children who needs care, guidance, protection, and affection. They cannot be fully developed individuals without being nurtured, educated, and trained. That’s why education is their basic right as children; gain proper knowledge to cultivate and, therefore, actively participate in society’s affairs. Furthermore, scientific studies show that the human brain function maturely once it reaches the age of 16, developing children’s reasoning and impulse control. That’s one reason why 18 is the legal age to enter for marriage or to participate in national election. A 9-year-old child has not yet hitting the age of puberty; thus, they are not yet mentally developed and capable to understand wholly the consequences of their actions. Supposedly a 9-year-old is in third grade of primary school, expected to do what exactly? Read books, play in the park, taking care of by an adult.

The bill suggests the reversion of the minimum age for criminal liability. Studies show that lowering the minimum age for criminal liability is flawed. The age of a child does not utterly reflect to the action he/she could do. Children’s development differs physically and psychologically and would be a conflict on how they should be treated in the criminal justice system. Therefore, reverting the minimum age of criminal responsibility at the age of 9 does not correspond to the developing capacities of children. Addition to this is the fact that criminal punishments will indeed harm the children, there will be instances where their

future pursuits could be damaged. Especially in the Philippines, where most correctional facilities are overcrowded, it would not be the best environment for them to further improve themselves. Research studies also present that lowering the age of criminal responsibility does not counter their main objective which is to address criminal syndicate to exploit children. Furthermore, children who have committed a crime under the influence of criminal groups should be treated not as criminal or culprit but as victims, they are just children who have been coerced by these people.

In connection with Kantian Ethics, the belief where an action should be a universal principle, or an act should be followed by every human being at all times. If we are going to view the case in this framework, lowering the age of criminal liability should be a worldwide change. Every nation, therefore, should lower minimum age for criminal liability. However, in different country laws and restrictions vary. Thus, if this bill would be a universal principle there will be a massive conflict regarding the laws with different nation around the globe. Kantian ethics also emphasizes the importance of human dignity and rights. Is we say that a child did unlawful act, got caught and put into a correctional facility. We are merely preventing him/her to fully enjoy his rights as a kid; we would be holding him to have a normal setting for education and environment. By institutionalizing a child at the age of 9, we are prohibiting hm/her to thoroughly grasp the basic rights as a human being. Moreover, this could shred a child’s dignity. Because whatever action he/she done during childhood will never determine the person he/she could become. The child’s wrongful acts will not reflect to his/her capabilities to develop a better version of himself/herself.

Lastly, the most important among the five (5) basic principles of ethics: the value of life principle. By criminalizing children at the age of 9, we are merely removing their right to live as a ‘children’. We are prohibiting them to fully experience their rights to life and liberty by institutionalizing them for month or even in years at a young age. We are robbing them their youth. Thus, naming children as criminals removes adults’ liability who are in the first place responsible for them. Adults are not to mold the children; they are however, responsible to build a solid foundation of learning. Adults must help to develop children’s skills, talents, and knowledge. Thus, protecting them and safeguarding their potentials are their duties. They are not to put the children’s sake into harm but to always prioritize their health and well-being as they are our future.

One question lies within this issue. “Is the Philippines ready to accommodate these children if they lower the age of criminal liability?” If criminal liability would be lowered in our country, can we ensure that crimes would significantly be lessen pertaining that these juvenile cases only compromise 2% of the country’s criminal cases? Or this act of the government to lower the minimum age of criminal liability is directed of political reasons as the current administration headed by President Duterte openly promotes his fight against drugs and criminals to gain sympathy of the people. What will happen to the future of these children who can be the next Bill Gates, Nelson Mandela or Albert Einstein of the country with the proper guidance they would need to overcome their past? Can their past be a hindrance for them to succeed?

References Desforges, C. (2003). The Impact of Parental Involvement, Parental Support and Family Education on Pupil Achievements and Adjustment: A Literature Review. Nottingham: DFES Publications. Brinker, G., Jarjoura, G., & Triplett, R. (2002). Growing Up Poor: Examining the Link between Persistent Childhood Poverty and Delinquency. Journal of Quantitatiûe Criminology, 159-187. Gaspar, M. (2019, February 26). Why lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility is false compromise. Philippines. Duvall, Tessa (2017). The Florida Times-Union - Jacsonville.com. Arrest of 12-yearold on manslaughter charges highlights challenges in cases of kids...