Britain's Ministry of Justice Defends Trying Juveniles as Adults

By Jeralyn, Section Juvenile Offenders
Posted on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:45:55 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This:

Barristers in Britain are criticizing the country's policy of trying juveniles as adults for serious crimes. In response, the spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice had this to say:

"When a person under 18 is tried at a Crown Court, special provisions are made to make the proceedings less intimidating. For example, gowns and wigs are not worn, frequent breaks are taken and the defendant is allowed to have a parent in the dock with them."

In a recent murder trial in which five young boys were convicted of killing the father of one of them during a cricket game, the Judge complained during the trial:

More...

Judge Warwick McKinnon said: "It has been brought to my attention that the defendants are wandering around unaccompanied and conducting themselves in such a way that staff members are worried that they may well get up to mischief."

Two of them had been seen hanging out of windows, he said.

He ordered their parents to control them in the courtroom.

They are on trial for murder and he's afraid they'll "get into mischief"? This would be almost comical but for the statistics and backward reaction to them:

Figures obtained by the BBC, under the Freedom of Information Act, show ed there were about 1,300 incidents of criminal damage and arson, and over 60 sex offences where suspects were under-10s in England and Wales. The report immediately led to calls for the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility.

< Excerpts From "Dead Certain", a New Book on Bush | Late Night: Keith Richards Through the Years >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Britain's Ministry of Justice Defends Trying Juveniles as Adults | 3 comments (3 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

What I think (none / 0) (#1)
by chemoelectric on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:21:56 AM EST

I think that all children should be tried as adults by the age of 2. No sense taking chances.

I'm not sure whether the child defendants or the Ministry of Justice need a doctor more. Probably the children, but still ... I have to wonder.

I think that we do need to review how (none / 0) (#2)
by JSN on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 08:53:54 AM EST

we deal with children who commit violent crimes. I don't think that
in small counties juvenile court has the resources needed to deal with violent crimes and adult court is not an appropriate substitute in my opinion.

Why are we so incapable of taking the long view. (none / 0) (#3)
by hellskitchen on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:01:10 AM EST

At 68 years of age, I look back on all the ways that society has reacted in a knee-jerk fashion. The starkest reactions in the criminal law area: trying juvenals as adults; sex-offender status for "technical" offenses (i.e. 18 yr old having consensual sex with 15 yr old); prosecutorial and societal hysteria over day care centers where care-takers were accused without anything near a valid questioning of the children. In social areas in recent years, we've had waiters publicly humiliating pregnant women for ordering an alcoholic beverage; gym attendants publicly humiliating pregnant women who wanted to use the hot tub (all whether or not the women were backed up in their decisions by the physicians).

You may say that the legal and social have nothing to do with one another - but they do within a cultural context. It speaks volumes about us as a society.

Almost a hundred and fifty years ago, my great-grandmother had six chidren - only two of whom survived to adulthood. Of the four that died, three died of childhood illnesses that were fatal then, but treatable now.

The fourth child was killed in his carriage by a rock thrown by a five-year-old who was not aiming at the carriage but obviously did not have sufficient motor control of his arm to have the rock land where he was aiming.

At the time, the death was considered a terrible tragedy. But what would happen today? An army of police and social workers would descend on the family to further traumatize a tragedy.

Do not misunderstand.

First of all, I do not condone bad behavior. But too often our society reacts before it understands the conditions bringing about the problem as well as finding the best way to either solve the problem (if it's solvable) or deal with it justly (if it's not solvable).

One final note: Too many of our "solutions" are based on hypocrisy. All these politicians, mostly Republican, who are finding themselves in sexual scandals (regardless of sexual orientation), are usually supporters of the most repressive and probably unconstitutional legislation to control exactly the behavior involved in their scandals.