Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Law change that could have seen James Bulger's killers escape trial

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 07 January 2009
THE age of criminal responsibility in Scotland could be raised from eight to at least 12 in a radical change to the law, it emerged yesterday.
Such a move, which children's rights campaigners say is long overdue, would effectively take all primary school-age children out of the formal justice system.

In a draft response to a United Nations committee that demanded a major change to the age of culpability in Scotland – one of the lowest in Europe – officials accept that change is necessary to bring the country into line with others by offering young offenders help instead of punishment.

It comes weeks after Scotland's chief prosecutor called for an increase in the age at which children could be held criminally responsible. Elish Angiolini, the Lord Advocate, told MSPs that eight-year-olds, who can at present be prosecuted, should not normally face the courts.

But critics point to newly released figures suggesting that children aged between eight and 11 are responsible for nearly 5,000 crimes every year in Scotland.

And the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents has previously argued that raising the age to 12 would leave under-12s vulnerable to exploitation by older criminals.

As far back as 2001, the then Scottish Executive was accused of dithering over plans to raise the age of criminal responsibility from eight to 12, amid fears of a public backlash following the release of James Bulger's killers.

If such an age limit had been in place across the UK at the time of the murder in 1993, his ten-year-old killers, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, would never have gone to court.

Last year, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended ministers "ensure that the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland should be raised considerably". It wants the minimum age across the UK to be 14 – in England, the age of criminal responsibility is ten.

A 58-page draft response by ministers indicates imminent reform.

Their response covers a huge range of children's issues, including a reaffirmation of a move to end the prison detention of under-16s.

A spokesman for the Scottish Government confirmed that ministers were considering the issue.

Last night, Kathleen Marshall, Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People, said she felt ashamed at the present age of criminal responsibility. "Scotland has one of the lowest and people are shocked by that," she said. "I feel ashamed of it. They (the government] could change it easily in terms of legislation … it would be for the greater good."

But Les Gray, chairman of the Strathclyde branch of the Scottish Police Federation, said he could not see what benefit there would be in a change in the law.

He said: "We have youths of all ages committing crime. Some are under the age of criminal responsibility, but most are aged between eight and 16.

"The majority will be one-time offenders who will learn their lesson. But the minority of persistent offenders will be responsible for a large proportion of reported crime."

Bill Aitken, the justice spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives, urged caution and said some young children were perfectly capable of knowing right from wrong.

He added: "The government must think long and hard about this before taking it further."

New figures – released under the Freedom of Information Act – show that more than 200 offences, including serious assault, fire-raising, robbery and racially aggravated conduct, were recorded by police investigating youngsters under eight.

This figure includes four three-year-olds who took part in vandalism in the Strathclyde, Central and Northern police areas. Other offences were more serious, with children aged six and seven caught committing racially aggravated offences and serious assault and being found in possession of weapons.


FACT BOX

THE age of criminal responsibility varies widely throughout the world. Here are some examples:

United States (some states): 6
Scotland: 8
Rest of UK: 10
Canada, the Netherlands: 12
France: 13
Germany, Austria, Italy, Japan, Russia: 14
Scandinavian nations: 15
Spain, Portugal: 16
Brazil, Peru: 18

The full article contains 683 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 06 January 2009 9:23 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Law and Order , Legal Issues
 
1

Tracker,

07/01/2009 01:02:39
The picture of James Bulger being led away to his death is a most powerful one. The memories I have of how he was tortured before he was killed are as fresh as they ever were. Luckily, however, few such serious crimes are committed by minors. But my main point is this: the pair who stood trial for the killing of James were barely punished. They were given new identities and ensured anonymity by a court ruling.
2

Dragonhead,

Dalian, China 07/01/2009 01:08:08
..and a FOUR year old in the US took a shotgun out of a closet and shot his baby-sitter! (he and friends survived the attack)Had he been killed, it would still have been murder no matter the age of the child.
This opens a Pandora's box of epic proportions.Drug mules and pushers will be under the age of responsibility.The age of Bill Sykes and his horde of juvenile thieves will be back with a vengeance.Yet again emotion overides common-sense in PC (Poked Country)UK.
3

syntax,

Edinburgh 07/01/2009 01:13:24
Hang on. Who would notice the difference? Nothing happens to young offenders at present, so in reality nothing would actually change.

I have long believed that there is absolutely no point in trying to prosecute thugs and criminals under the age of sixteen. That's why I always advise victims to find out who the kids are and get someone to give them a good hiding /:o) Works for me !!!!

The government have lost touch with reality. Kids know exactly what they are doing and should pay for their criminality.....
4

Brian Hill,

Edinburgh 07/01/2009 02:10:23
Under different circumstances the Bulger killers would have been painted as innocents abroad, but because they were the perpetrators, they became all knowing, fully understanding Satanic figures and were treated like animals by the media and rent-a-mob, as they came and went from trial.

They were 10 years old, products of their home, their neighbourhood, their school. They didn't bring themselves up.

Their parents, neighbours, teachers and social workers should have been in the dock with them.

Sending them to prison at that age was in itself criminal.
5

drunken proffet,

Tassy 07/01/2009 05:19:36
When did they stop staking them out on the mountain for wild animals to eat? See when you get older, you lose track of a lot of things.
6

Eckyboo,

07/01/2009 06:41:37
It's bad enough at the moment with 8 year old's and under rampaging the streets breaking windows, vandalising cars etc and the Courts/Childrens Panel just giving them a slap on the wrist. Anyone who says an 11 year old does not know right from wrong is a fool. If anyone commits a crime then someone should be held responsible and if they are under age then the parents should be forced into community service or something. These idiots that come up with silly ideas about `The rights of the child` obviously do not have to live with the constant harrassment of gangs of kids going around doing exactly what they want knowing full well that if they are caught nothing will happen.
7

,

07/01/2009 07:15:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

,

07/01/2009 07:24:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

dyon gollins's back,

Brussels 07/01/2009 08:27:32
Come off it Ms Thomson - This is quite the most perverse and misleading treatment of the subject which could have been run by you and it should put the Hootsmon to shame to run such a sensationalist report - the James Bulger case took place in England and had it been in Scotland the perpetrators would have been dealt with under the Scottish juvenile Justice system - they would not have escaped; there was massive criticism of the way the accused were dealt with in that trial which led itself to changes in English procedure, largely under influence of the European Convention of Human Rights (an initiative of the late Winston Churchill let no one forget!!)a factor which is clearly also of maximum importance in Scotland.
The issue is very complex and concerns in the main very few serious crimes - it deserves a better and more enlightened debate than it seems Scotsmoan is capable of mounting these days.
10

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 07/01/2009 08:43:19
Kathleen Marshall (no doubt from a detached villa on a leafy street in the Grange / Ravelston Dykes) says 'I'm ashamed'. Not as ashamed as those of us who've seen the country become a cesspit of feral brats thanks to well-meaning middle class zoomers.
11

PlanA,

Glasgow 07/01/2009 08:54:01
So what would be put in place to stop minors offending? It won't simply go away by raising the age. Punishment is a dirty word and the Kathleen Marshalls of the world have been trying to ban smacking for years.
12

Boy Wonder,

07/01/2009 09:07:22
Raising the age of culpability is burying your head even deeper in the sand!

At the age of six, I knew full well what I was doing when I was nicking apples from the local orchard. It was wrong, yes ... and I got one valuable lesson out of it. How to run fast and not get caught!

Human beings have an innate sense of wrong and right from a very early age. I'd say 3 yrs old. I've watched toddler say for years "It wisnae me!" and try to pin the fault their younger siblings! Hell, I did it too!

By 5, they know what stealing really is and many 5 year-olds are deeply covetous of other kids' things. That doesn't go away.

If McAskill and MSPs allow this to go through, then they truly have lost the plot.

Of course it's wrong to imprison kids. But you have to get them away from families and neighbourhoods where those petty wee crimes can grow into full-fledged criminality.

Just look at where they do "fester" ... all the old housing schemes with bad names. Wee criminals tend to grow up into big criminals.

Juvenile detention centres are needed, but the support network can't be a lock 'em up, beat them down, bunch of screws. That's where the army of psychologists and childcarers should be. Weaning them OFF crime from 5 up!!!
13

Douglas,

Bathgate 07/01/2009 09:07:49
Put them in high visibility vests and give them a taste of what to expect when the full force of the adult law is brought to bear in future years.

Beardie wierdie knobs.
14

Douglas,

Bathgate 07/01/2009 09:09:22
Boy Wonder! Your geriatric mate was looking for you elsewhere this morning.
Good to see you haven't fallen foul of feral youth after all. :o)
15

Angoos,

Baku, Azerbaijan 07/01/2009 09:19:19
"If you do the Crime, You do the Time" as the old saying goes. The trouble these days is that most criminals, regardless of age, get "pampered" when convicted due to the authorities being afraid of beinf sued for infringing on the criminals "human rights".
Bring back slopping out and hard labour, take away the pool tables, tv's, etc. and bring back corporal punishment in schools. It's the only way that persistant criminals and unruly schoolkids will learn that there are consequences for their actions !!!
16

ddmc,

07/01/2009 09:31:26
8 yo is fine , why change it
17

paulr,

edinburgh 07/01/2009 09:52:50
"a draft response to a United Nations committee"
I dont hear the UN shouting at the US about their age of criminal responsibility, do you?
This is typical of the ineffectual posturing of the UN, a totally powerless and pretty useless body.
It is no wonder that the israelis and other such grnocidal maniacs treat the UN with utter contempt an example -- bombing UN schools.
18

paulr,

edinburgh 07/01/2009 09:55:16
A total waste of time when you have the parents telling them not to worry, the polis cannae touch you cos your too young.
A situation which can only deteriorate
19

St Andrews Jock,

ST ANDREWS 07/01/2009 09:56:32
Why Change? Discretion can always be used, but the option to apply the procedures and sanctions that apply now should be retained. The victim is the person harmed. Too often the system views the the perpetrator as the victim. Further there needs to be some deterrent to dissuade both others and the perpetrator of a crime from doing it again.
20

Pete McClelland,

07/01/2009 10:07:05
Leave the miners out of this!
21

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 07/01/2009 10:26:23
According to the website of the International Juvenile Justice Research Project, Scotland is not the only country with a low age of criminal responsibility.
Another 9 countries, including Northern Ireland. also prosecute children from the age of 8 years onward. (In England and Wales it is 12)

Thirteen countries, including the Australian State of Tasmania, India, Malaysia and the Republic of Ireland,
prosecute children from the age of 7 onwards.

However, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child acknowledged that children between the age of 8 and 16 years rarely, if ever, appear in a Scottish Court because of Scotland's unique Childrens Panel system which according to the Committee is greatly admired throughout the world!
22

Decent,

07/01/2009 10:57:39
Brian Hill - So because they had a bad upbringing that entitles them to murder a toddler? I suggest you put your veiwpoint to poor Denise Bulger. What would you suggest was done with them? Send them away to a holiday camp with some nice social workers? Oh sorry - I forgot we did that - after they spent three minutes in detention.
23

Massive,

Gorebridge 07/01/2009 11:13:07
I agree with the majority of those who have registered a comment. Kids understand, at a very early age, the difference between right and wrong. They also understand that they won't face prosecution below the age of sixteen and they use it to their advantage. People near here watched a boy from a perfectly ordinary home, in a small village as he became a one child crime wave. He broke into houses, stole cars, progressed into dealing in drugs and eventully graduated into serious violence. All the time he laughed at the authorities saying "you can't touch me, I'm under sixteen". The only people who escaped his attentions were those who had made it clear that they would break his legs if he touched their property.

This boy has now become a man, in whom the habit of stealing anything he wants is so ingrained, that he has already started down the road to a lifetime spent in and out of prison. If he had been dealt with more severely at a younger age, instead of pretending he was a young innocent who couldn't be expected to know he was doing wrong. Increasing the age of responsibility will just make these children even worse. Bring back proper discipline in scools and stop pampering these little thugs.
24

Observer,,

Glasgow 07/01/2009 11:29:14
Kids like the Bulger killers don't understand right from wrong. That doesn't excuse what they did, but it does mitigate it. The best way to avoid children turning into animals is to avoid treating them like animals.
25

Decent,

07/01/2009 11:39:01
Animals don't kill for fun. But I get your point and I've said it before stop paying people to breed.
26

Brian Hill,

07/01/2009 11:40:05
#22 decent says: "So because they had a bad upbringing that entitles them to murder a toddler?"

Entitles? No, that's not even implied never mind stated in my post. But we have to ask ourselves, under what circumstances would two 10 year olds even want to think about harming, never mind killing another child, especially a toddler?

These kids felt worthless, alienated and most definitely unloved. They needed help, not to be told by everyone, including the judge that they were 'evil'.

If a woman snaps after years of abuse and kills her husband she gets sympathy. Her crime is manslaughter not murder.

Don't you think 2 children deserve as much sympathy for living lives which deaden their emotions to the extent that they can throw bricks at a toddler screaming with pain and fear and then have the presence of mind to try and cover up their tracks by trying to make it look like a train killed Jamie?

We can't have an Age of Consent at 16 on the one hand and an Age of Responsibility at 8 on the other hand, it's ludicrous, unfair and completely hypocritical.

Realism and honesty dictates that this gap has to be narrowed dramatically.
27

Decent,

07/01/2009 12:43:18
Brian - No I certainly don't think they deserve as much sympathy as poor wee Jamie who harmed no-one. There are thousands of deprived abused and unwanted kids. fair enough if they had snapped and killed their parents or whoever made their lives hell. But the fact is they planned to take that wee boy and torture and kill him. I'm fed up with people like you defending the indefensable. It's people like you that have made this country the sad pathetic place it is where old people can't go out and toddlers can't play. How would you feel if it was your son? Would you still expect sympathy for the poor misunderstood bullies?
28

Dragonhead,

Dalian,China 07/01/2009 13:08:03
#30 Decent. Well said good sir! When will the totally well meaning, but misguided among us, realize the truth.Emotion versus Common-sense has ruined the once respected country called Great Britain.
The social mores have been turned completely upside down.I like many others (#12 Boy Wonder gives an accurate picture of children) would have been uncontrollable had I not been walloped for my misdeeds as a child. NOT battered, but a sound backside warming.In those days too, folk or the law knocked on a door and spoke to the parents.The child in question could contemplate their fate once the complaint had been made.In fact if memory serves me well.Parents were held responsible for the actions of their progeny. Children damaged other's property, the parents had to fork out to have it repaired. Time to go back to the old tried and tested standards of behaviour.An Enlightened society does not mean crime should go unpunished. Check out Tibet before 1951 and the actions of the nobles towards the ethnic Tibetans.(Not a pro China rant)There are distinct similarities now between the UK and how it was in Tibet then. The ruling class treated the other 95% of the population with complete contempt and did as they pleased. Sound familiar? It should it is UK today to a tee.
29

Brian Hill,

07/01/2009 13:25:44
Decent says: "No I certainly don't think they deserve as much sympathy as poor wee Jamie who harmed no-one."

Decent, you are allowing your emotions to cloud your judgement. The comparison of sympathy is with women who snap and kill their husbands following years of abuse.

Jamie's killers clearly had no upbringing, no love, no guidance in their blighted young lives whatsoever. We turned them into little savages by allowing them to run with the pack in their neighbourhood and we are continuing to produce more savage behaviour among our young which is evidenced on a daily basis of maimings and killings of young on young.

Until we recognise the deficiencies caused by current attitudes matters will only get worse.

I think you will find that our objectives and views on the current situation are closer than you think, only our solutions are different.
30

Sumlogic,

07/01/2009 13:39:32
How is it OK and NOT punishable to say stab someone or torture a child because your age on some date chart says you’re under say 16 (or 15 or 18) but yet magically when over this age you become responsible...

What happens on the second of their birthday arriving, do they metamorphose, gain some new cosmic Wisdom, or in truth is this age thing for the most part just really silly!

People need to realise from an EARLY age that crimes against another person for instance will not be tolerated for ANY reason.

Is it the circumstances and severity of the case that really matters more than the age of the offender at the time? Does this mean that 15 year olds can rape or molest kids and not be punished?

Hire a 15-year-old drug runner, or gunman...loads of teenagers are carrying knives as it stands, what kind of message does this send out?

Is it more to salve the stupid illogical guilt driven conscience of the law making do-gooders than anything else?


31

Dylan fan,

Planet earth 07/01/2009 13:48:21

Very interesting... I never knew the U S Sates had such a low age of responsibility. I always thought it was 16 yrs. old still with parents involved in the responsibility and punishment outcome. 18 years old.. you are pretty much on your own. 21 that's it. You are on your own.

Yes, covetousness is fostered in modern society at everyturn when the techno items of necessity cost so much and there are no jobs for mommy and dad. TV and the advertising media have warped our brains and morals and it starts with the toddlers. The TV is the babysitter we all have leaned on when raising children. Parents for the last several generations have been relinquishing their responsibility to the schools, the church, the community, to their parents and the neighbors. Anyone but themselves! In their rush to grab what they can of life. After all, we want it all, Right? We are gullible fools and the children pay the price.
32

EK,

Edinburgh 07/01/2009 13:54:38
Silly to waste time to change it - this country is full of little Sh*ts that other countries don't have. a lot of kids nowadays behave like animals and should be punished accordingly (and at stome stage helped if finances allow). Families must bring up their children correctly and not leave it up to the stste. There should be strong extended families, dads, uncles etc who can keep these kids under control. It's time to end this silly "anyone can do what they want, let girls get pregnant have kids when they like, not look after them" attitude. Everyone has to suffertherefor eit is against OUR (decent people) hunab rights to be blighted by a dreadful society of feral youngster. It's the responsibility of individuals to make sure their kids behave well.
33

EK,

Edinburgh 07/01/2009 13:56:52
Post 36 - sorry rushed too much some spelling errors! hunab= human
34

Ecce,

Edinburgh 07/01/2009 13:57:36
Among the people Brian Hill (4) blames for the behaviour of the Jamie Bulger killers are teachers. Pardon me, but how are teachers faced with a class of out-of-control youngsters who have been brought up by their parents to respect nothing and no-one responsible for the death of a toddler? As a retired teacher , I find it offensive in the extreme to hear that "teachers should have been in the dock" too. Maybe it's do-gooders like him who should have been there.
35

EK,

Edinburgh 07/01/2009 14:04:39
You are right #38 - do gooders have a lot to answer for.
Most of the public are sensible and want proper justice and for people to behave well.
I wonder if anyone thinks about the rights of the ordinary decent hard working man in the street? what happens to our human rights to live in a safe environment with minumum crime etc. No ne thinks of that. It' s pathetic.
36

Ave Maria,

London 07/01/2009 14:11:02
Children are now growing up much quicker than in previous generations and therefore have a definitive understanding of right and wrong from an early age. I don't think there is any need to raise the age of criminal responsibility.

For all of the posters that are citing a difficult upbringing and being raised in poor areas as a reason that children and young people go on to commit crimes - I work as a volunteer for a domestic abuse charity in London and we see some majorly underpriviledged children who have been raised in violent and abusive households. Granted some of these children have been involved in crime but it is a very small percentage. I think it's unfair to pigeon hole all underpriviledged kids as criminals. It will only lead to them having low expectations of themselves.
37

Decent,

07/01/2009 14:12:10
You may be right Brian - but your way isn't working. We can't possibly be in every house in the land to supervise the way they bring up their offspring so why do you say WE turned them into savages? I did pick up on your comparison - that is why I said I would have had sympathy with them if they had killed their parents - but they didn't. They are evil bullies - plain and simple - one maybe more so than the follower - and they deserved to be punished. You on the other hand never answered my question. What if it was your son?
38

Decent,

07/01/2009 14:15:51
Ave Maria - It's not the public that pigeon holes them - it's the social workers and courts systems that continually uses this as an excuse for their behaviour. I totally agree with you. Just because you have been abused doesn't mean you will go on to abuse others. It's all a question of stopping the circle. But while the courts continue to do background reports and excuse them they are never going to change.
39

Ave Maria,

London 07/01/2009 14:28:48
Decent - I don't agree that the public don't pigeon hole these kids. I think the media perpetuates the myth that all kids from underpriviledged areas are criminals, all black kids are involved in gang activity, all kids wearing hoodies are thugs, etc, etc and the majority of the British public buy it. I have friends who when visiting me from Scotland would rather cross the street than walk past a group of kids for fear of being knifed. It would be comical if it wasn't so ridiculous.

I do agree with you that the circle needs to be broken. Children with difficult upbringings do need additional support and opportunities to lead functional adult lives.
40

Decent,

07/01/2009 14:38:15
Ave - Most people are individuals and as such are capable of stopping the circle on their own. They may benefit from some counselling but I don't beleive in mollycoddling and letting them away with murder. As for crowds of youths - I would rather cross the street myself - it's not ridiculous at all.
41

Lizbet,

Tayside 07/01/2009 18:06:37
I don't relly know if the age of culpability should be raised or not. However I heard a debate on Radio 2 the other day, when a mother told a story of a little boy of 6 years of age. He had looked up her little daughter's skirt, under the desk. This woman was sensible and agreed the child should be admonished but the other parents wanted him to be put on the sex register! The world has gone mad!
42

The faithful=,

Gracemount 07/01/2009 18:23:37
18* You are spot on,i have heard feral fathers tell their feral children what they can get away with and what they cant.So what hope does anyone have when that is the mentality of them.
43

Ewan Oosami,

07/01/2009 18:34:31
Whatever age the little gets are whilst they are under 16 the parents should take full responsibility for their actions and it should be down to them that they make sure the little swines are brought up knowing right from wrong.
As for social workers, I wouldn't pay them in washers. No wonder our council taxes are so high having to pay these useless parasites for doing nothing.
44

mollysg,

USA 07/01/2009 20:50:05
Stating age 6 as the age of criminal responsibility in the US is either a misprint or a gross oversimplification. Until age 16 (in most states) a prosecutor can petition to have a juvenile defendant tried as an adult and then must make a case to the judge as to why this is necessary. Then it’s up to the judge.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.