I’m straying somewhat outside my area of expertise here, but bear with me. Apparently, the genii responsible for all critical thought in this country have been thinking on our behalf again:

Calls to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 have been rejected by the government.

England’s children’s commissioner Maggie Atkinson had told the Times that most criminals under 12 did not fully understand their actions.

I must admit, it’s difficult for me to remember those dim and distant days when I was ten years old. But I do remember having a pretty good idea of what was trivial and what was serious within a very short time of becoming aware. It didn’t take many beatings for things to be clear to me. I think I would struggle to say that I was capable of bearing criminal responsibility when I was four, but by the time I was six, it was absolutely clear to me where the boundaries were. And they were not difficult to remember: a healthy respect for people, their animals and their property. Damage any of the preceding, and I would be in a world of pain.

A certain tolerance of accidental happenings was available, but deliberate actions bore consequences.

I always understood that my actions might have consequences and it made for a certain amount of focus when I was contemplating any given course of action.

So I find it difficult to agree with Maggie Atkinson. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that any ten-year-old child who didn’t yet understand that taking the life of a fellow human being was someone that should really be locked away indefinitely in a secure mental institution for the safety of society. And I would probably go even further: any parent who had not made this clear to their child by the age of ten should probably accompany them.

It goes some way past the degree of “remiss” and into the territory of “criminal neglect” to fail to instil such ideas into your children by the end of their first decade. And it’s ludicrous to assert that a ten-year-old would not understand that brutally beating another child to death was completely unacceptable behaviour.

Much speculation surrounds the famous killer Ted Bundy’s first kill, but the first identified kill was when he was 27, there is a strong possibility that he first killed when he was 25 and there is an outside chance that he first killed when he was 14. He confessed to 30 murders, of which only 20 were identified. So someone who started at age 10 clearly has the potential to become a very scary person indeed.

If Maggie Atkinson doesn’t think that a ten-year-old child would understand that beating a toddler to death was criminal behaviour, perhaps she should be locked away for our safety as well…

1
Jess The Dog March 20, 2010 at 08:48

This was puzzling me as well. I don’t recall murdering anyone as a child either, or any of my friends. By this reckoning, we should have an entire nation of murdering children, or at least a standard distribution curve of murderous behaviour. But we don’t which indicates most children realise that murder is at least very naughty.

Idiots like Atkinson want to let children run riot unfettered by adults with a whole range of State-supervised ‘rights’ and the parents merely breeding machines and cash cows. I’d be surprised if she has any children of her own.

2
PT March 20, 2010 at 09:23

There is a big difference between protecting children from the evil intentions and/or actions of others, and protecting them from the natural consequences of their own evil actions and/or intentions. If Atkinson does not, can not or will not understand this basic aspect of her job, then she is in the wrong job.
Or is it the job itself that is wrong?

3
Elby The Beserk March 20, 2010 at 09:28

For New Labour, the concept of “personal responsibility” is one that has been subsumed into the all powerful state; given that they now look after us in all aspects of life, and indeed, rather than the parent, are now the true guardian of the child, why should any of us be concerned with “personal responsibility”?

4
Antisthenes March 20, 2010 at 09:51

Actually Maggie Atkinson has a point, today children are much less aware of what is right or wrong. You are seeing it from a prospective of your own childhood and I would concur in that evaluation from my childhood. In your and my day parents set boundaries and taught their children to respect and understand what was deemed to be good or bad. Sadly that is not the case anymore, standards and moral values have declined to alarming levels, parents do not make good role models and do not set boundaries any more. Hence the age at which the full understanding of actions has moved progressively upwards and in some cases never being achieved. This is a deplorable state of affairs, however I do not agree that should be a reason to legally move the age from 10 to 12, when would it stop next year it will be raised 13 and the next year so on. You actually expressed a solution in demanding that parents should be held responsible for their children s actions, I agree and that should be to a certain age. That should force parents to reevaluate whether they are exercising the right controls and given the best guidance to their offspring. In the event that does not solve the problem then the age to which parents should be responsible for their children should be raised until it does.

5
Renegade Parent March 20, 2010 at 10:09

Maggie Atkinson is not a mother as far as I am aware. That has not, however, stopped her from claiming in public that *your* children are *hers*. When a childless woman in a position of power is pushing for collective ownership of other people’s children then you know that something is very, very wrong and unnatural indeed.

6
Elby The Beserk March 20, 2010 at 10:12

@Renegade Parent

One of the most of the many pernicious changes this government has forced upon us is to impress us that the child is the ward of the state and not the parents.

Which is, as you note, very wrong and very unnatural. Labour are a Fifth Column, dedicated to the destruction of, if not the UK, then certainly England; in that light, 1997 was a silent putsch.

7
Savonarola March 20, 2010 at 10:40

Apart from parents’ strictures(including the odd thrashing) on behaviour, the Ten Commandments also bore heavy on any decision to lie/steal/bully.

No bad children only bad parents has a ring of truth. I want it all society is paying a heavy price for their self indulgence.

8
petesoakel March 20, 2010 at 11:03

It is what happens when you have children having children

9
Thaddeus J. Wilson March 20, 2010 at 11:04

Antisthenes, I like your thinking!

10
Blink March 20, 2010 at 11:20

I’ve always thought that even if Maggie Atkinson (any relation to Ron?) was ‘eminently qualified’ for her invented post, it was always a political appointment and she has proved she doesn’t have the balls for it!

11
jailhouselawyer March 20, 2010 at 12:09

There appears to be too much tabloid hype on this issue and I feel that some journalists and editors are baiting Denise Fergus, James Bulger’s mother, into giving them soundbites.

At 10 years of age I had not even started secondary school, and was still in junior school, so it is wrong to treat children of that age as though they are criminally responsible adults. I did get involved in petty pilfering, and don’t recall thinking about the rights and wrongs of my conduct.

What happens in other jurisdictions is care and secure accomodation until the child reaches the age of maturity. Pretty much the same in the UK, save for the spectacle of a show trial in an adult court. And, it is this and the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility where the problem lies.

Knee-jerking politicians dancing to the drum beat of hysteria whipped up by the tabloids.

What Jon Venables and Robert Thompson did was horrific. It could almost have been a scene out of the film Lord of the Flies. As it happens, it would appear that the film Chucky left an impression in one or both of their minds. Playing out for real what should have stayed fantasy. I recall leaving the cinema as a kid and along with others we would act out parts of the films, but staying the right side and not crossing the line. But is is not just children, some adults take fantasy too far.

Where there is a hypocrisy here is the system for the sake of the tabloids to sell more papers, and the baying mob to vent their anger, treating children as adults for a short while and then detaining them until they reach adulthood and then releasing them. It was the being tried as adults which doesn’t add up, it was foisted upon them 8 years too early. I think the age of criminal responsibility should be 16 or 18. This is not to say that those younger cannot commit criminal acts, we know they can and do. It is how we respond as a responsible and civilised society that matters. And this case highlights our failings.

12
Rob March 20, 2010 at 12:22

Criminal responsibility starts at age 8 in Scotland. I’m not sure if that’s a reflection of our more violent culture. I certainly knew by aged 8 not to kill someone. We were wacked for being too noisy or being cheeky and would be marched to the local police ‘tardus’ that used to be on every street corner in the 60’s for anything more serious. Like throwing stones or fighting in the street.

13
Thaddeus J. Wilson March 20, 2010 at 13:08

Jailhouselawyer, I substantially disagree with both your assertion that the age of criminal responsibility should be higher and the idea that you didn’t think that petty pilfering was wrong. I’m pretty damn sure you knew it was wrong. I’ll bet you didn’t go bragging to your parents and teachers about it.

14
wonderfulforhisage March 20, 2010 at 15:45

TJW 13:08

I’d say that it all depends on what one understands by the word ‘wrong’ . I know that it is ‘wrong’ to drive at 35mph in a built up area. I also know that it is ‘wrong’ to shoplift. But, they are different kinds of ‘wrongness’. To me speeding is a behaviour and does not define who I am. Shoplifting is also a behaviour but if I indulged it would define who I saw myself as a perosn. I’d feel a bad person and suffer guilt.

My guess is that many people do not see themselves as bad people if they indulge in petty pilfering although they know it to be ‘wrong’ just as I know speeding is ‘wrong’.

15
bil March 20, 2010 at 17:58

Well the nuns and the monks thrashed it into me, then my parents would thrash me all over again.

Again, if the local bobby gave me a clip round the ear, parents would thrash me again.

I learned very young the limits and bounds expected in ‘civilised’ society.

Was that right, is it wrong? My personal view is that I am a better person for it.

If a child doesn’t know what is right or wrong by the age of ten, then society is screwed. Ok, so society is screwed.

16
English Viking March 20, 2010 at 18:07

I think the age of Criminal responsibility should be raised to over 50, just for a day, then I could slit Gordon Brown’s throat and then bleat that I didn’t know it was wrong.

I would think it likely that this awful woman has got zero experience of real parenting and you can sure that she has never suffered the loss of a child to a murderer of any age.

Until these people are forced to live in the world which they are creating, they will continue to ruin the lives of the taxpayers whom they leech off.

17
Mr. X March 21, 2010 at 03:29

All that thrashings prove is that “might is right”, violence is a way to impose supremacy over others. It’s about control, imposing one’s will, which is what happened during their encounter with James Bulger.

Besides, this thing about Venables seeing Child’s Play is overdone anyway – it has not been proven. His thing was Roald Dahl stories – his mother confirmed that and he told the authorities in 1993 that one of his “magic wishes” was to “turn the world into a chocolate factory”. Does anyone remember “The Swan”?

There’s a lot of confusion about the age of criminal responsibility. Let’s assume for a moment that they did the same thing one year earlier. They would have ended up in custody for many years, perhaps as many years, and they would have been subject to intervention and control. The only difference is that there would not have been a public trial and their identities would not have been publicised, thus making it not necessary to make new identities for them.

Studies show that children who kill do not kill again, especially young children. Serial killers start usually in their late teens and later. This idea that Venables and Thompson were headed down the road of being incurable serial killers is not supported by the facts.

18
Mr. X March 21, 2010 at 03:33

One more thing – the lynch mob proves a point about groups of people. That as individuals something would seem impossible, but in a group, this thing, this violence, this becomes possible. Has it ever occurred to anyone that this is what happened to Thompson and Venables. Alone, they could not have done this. But together, it became possible. Also, my own experience is that as adults, we would die for and kill for babies and toddlers. They are so precious that we are angered and react strongly to any attacks on them and of course to murder of them. But as a ten year old, I did not feel that way. I’m not saying that I would have killed one, I’m simply pointing out that they did something that was particularly heinous in the adult world but not quite so bad to them.

19
Thaddeus J. Wilson March 21, 2010 at 09:12

I’d be very interested to see these studies, Mr. X.