BBC News Updated every minute of every day

Added: Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 20:19 GMT 21:19 UK

I like to think that children who commit crimes are still a minority. But it is obvious to anyone that more and more young people are at least anti-social, and often aggressive. My preference is for the age to be lowered to eight but I doubt that will happen. Please let's not raise it to 12 because I think we will only make the situation worse.

[Josfroze]

Added: Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 15:30 GMT 16:30 UK

Children are voilent sometimes (they can hit when they're throwing a tantrum, for example), and this is usually accompanied by a telling off from someone. They learn this is wrong (if not at home, then they must see this in their wider environment). If a child assaults someone to the extent that the victim is unconscious or dead, then they fully deserve the accompanying sentence for their crime. There is no way that they can fail to realise that, to some extent, what they have done is wrong.

[Prorsum], United Kingdom

Added: Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 09:24 GMT 10:24 UK

There is too much crime involving the teenage group but not every teenager is a criminal teenagers are portraid as yobs, scum, and chavs when not all teenagers are these "Yobs" but the purpose of me writing this comment is to bring back CIVIL SERVICE for the teenage group the youngsters leaving svhool or whom have left school should be placed in millatary hands therefore there will be less crime involving knife crime which is getting ridiculous and involving civill service will stop these crimes

Matthew, Rotherham

Added: Monday, 22 June, 2009, 10:27 GMT 11:27 UK

Children do actually, if given the correct type of parenting, know from a very early age what is right and what is wrong. However, whether youngsters (no matter how streetwise they are) can properly participate in court/legal proceedings is a moot point. That said, criminality amongst children is at a frightening level, so if we raise the age of criminal responsibility, we must put in place the balancing action of making the parents liable for their child's actions, including absent fathers!

Eleanor, Glasgow

Added: Monday, 22 June, 2009, 09:35 GMT 10:35 UK

There is crime and there is violent crime. If a child steals then there is a chance they could be doing it for attention, or any other number of reasons where the parents can be held to blame.
If a child kills or maims another person then they are (by the very nature of their act) dangerous, so they need to be detained and assessed. It's not rocket science.

Richard Adams, Oxford, United Kingdom

Added: Sunday, 21 June, 2009, 22:49 GMT 23:49 UK

Right, I'm 12, I attend a grammar school, and I know that any criminal offence I commit, I will likely be prosecuted for it.

I understand the Actus Rea, and Mens Rea, as in, criminal liability-
I know the if I nick a tenner from someone for lunch money, I am technically committing a crime - and knowing that I am committing a crime, and therefore I know that I am responsible for my own actions? In fact, I knew this when I was 8.

Matt, London

Added: Sunday, 21 June, 2009, 08:23 GMT 09:23 UK

Some years ago a friend of mine, who lived on a council estate in north London, went out to remonstrate with a group of young children who were throwing stones around. The children told him to f- off. He then played what he thought was his trump card, “If you don’t stop I’ll get a policeman.” To which the reply came, “Do what you f-ing like mate, we’re below the age of criminal responsibility!”

Bill Measure, Leytonstone

Added: Saturday, 20 June, 2009, 23:03 GMT 00:03 UK

Someone please save us from these experts!

Steve Thompson, Expat, Australia

Added: Saturday, 20 June, 2009, 19:22 GMT 20:22 UK

All people can be criminals, but, depending on background, culture, and mental capacity, people develop senses of responsibility at different rates. Sure, some 10-year-olds have a very clear understanding of right and wrong and their consequences. But a good number of 'adults' don't. Assigning age-limits is a blunt instrument, and not a useful one. We need a fresh approach, where, at any age (even adult), an offender's mental maturity is assessed, & we have flexibility to decide our response.

[longthinker], United Kingdom

Added: Saturday, 20 June, 2009, 19:06 GMT 20:06 UK

"Comments like these breed the myth that most 'youths' are just thugs, and it simply isn't true. Although I accept that we have a serious problem with some kids, they are very much in the minority. I guess if you're sucked in by the 'Feral kids' tabloid headlines you would believe it.

[Nic121]"

"Feral kids" may be minority nationwide. But they are majority in poorer parts of every town. Face the reality. Just because you don't live in these areas, you can't ignore the problem.

Mustafa Yorumcu, London

Added: Friday, 19 June, 2009, 21:16 GMT 22:16 UK

It is not whether children can be criminals, but rather a fact that all children, by nature, are criminals until they have been properly brought up, adequately educated, and civilized into the ideals and values of a properly functional society. Inherent nature's instinct and impulse must be tamed. Where children remain criminal, in their acts, as they grow older, it is purely the fault of society for failing to train, educate, enlighten and, where need be, properly diagnose, treat and cure.

Bob Ezergailis, Hamilton, Canada

Added: Friday, 19 June, 2009, 14:35 GMT 15:35 UK

I read the other day that a child had been hauled into the dock for making a relatively mild racist comment to another child during an argument. I'm not advocating this child's actions, but surely it seems a little excessive to criminalise a them for this - a good telling off should do the trick.

However I would think that most children know the difference between right and wrong. If they choose to steal, terrorise and hurt others, then in a fair wolrd they should answer for it

Isn't this, obvious?

Added: Friday, 19 June, 2009, 13:40 GMT 14:40 UK

How can they say there is a definate 'cut-off' age for responsibility?

There are some thirty + year olds who have no idea of the concept of responsibility for their actions, and they are more than willing to blame any anyone for their actions and their lives, while I know some very thoughtful and responsible Seven year olds who know exactly the consequences of their actions and how they affect others around them. Every case should be taken in isolation and without prejudice.

[HeadBox], Wolverhampton, United Kingdom

Added: Friday, 19 June, 2009, 11:24 GMT 12:24 UK

The programme was most illuminating. It exposed the folly of rules as opposed to laws. The law should be that chidren should only be prosecuted if they are judged to be criminally responsible for their actions. Their age is irrelevant. Each child should be judged individually by a suitably appointed "panel". Those judged responsible would be tried accordingly; those not, helped to become aware of their responsiblities. Today we don't have the rule of law, we have the law of rules!

david king

Added: Friday, 19 June, 2009, 10:00 GMT 11:00 UK

Welcome to politically correct, socialist England where kids are king and parents are encouraged by loads of benefits to give their kids everything they want but not what they need - discipline! Then the government and the authorities that look after childrens services wonder why children turn out the way they do when anything they want they demand they get and responsible parents who discipline their kids are treated like scum.

You can't have it both ways!

PC Exempt, United Kingdom