Juvenile Reform Bill – poorly defended, poorly criticized

May 04, 2018 Letters

---

Editor,
During week ending 28th April, 2018, the print media in Guyana carried portions of the contributions of parliamentarians on the Bill named at caption. While one could not expect these reports to incorporate all the content and arguments for and against the Bill offered by parliamentarians, one had the right to expect the most substantive aspects of the Bill and the most informed arguments for and against it, to be reported.
So, I will assume what was carried in the media did just this. I will examine those aspects of the bill and the contributions of parliamentarians as reported.
The Bill proposes the decriminalizing of status crimes, and free legal services for the accused. These are things many of us have been demanding for some time, so no need to waste time expounding here. We simply note, this was the right thing to do and recognize Ms Sandra Hooper, Nicole Cole and others for their efforts in this matter.
The Bill also calls for the age of criminal responsibility to be changed from 10 to 14years. From what was reported this led to some interesting exchanges between government and opposition.
The government we are told, claims it consulted with its CARICOM partners before making its decision to move the age of criminal responsibility to 14. One can only wish the nation was told a bit more about the content of the consultation. Did the governments in CARICOM suggest the age of 14? If so, what scientific finding led them to their conclusion on this matter? If the decision was not based on scientific findings, what was it based on?
The opposition for its part opposed age 14 as the official age for assuming criminal responsibility. It wondered what the government would do when a child under age fourteen commits a crime.
The opposition then went on to offer age 12 as the age of criminal responsibility. In the first place, strictly speaking, a child under age 14; if the age of criminal responsibility is 14; cannot commit a crime.
Children under the legal age of what is considered ‘age of criminal responsibility,’ can only be guilty of anti-social behavior. Second, to ask what happens to a child who commits an anti-social act that would be considered a crime if he/she were under age 14 is silly.
The PPP will appreciate how silly this question was if they merely ask themselves – what happens to the child who commits a crime who is under age 12, the age they propose as the age of criminal responsibility?
Second, the PPP must also tell us what body of knowledge it relied on in proposing age 12 as the age of criminal responsibility. Deciding on the age of criminally responsible needs to be taken seriously since whatever decision is made could affect the lives of hundreds (thousands perhaps) of young people, who have no right being treated as adults and stained with a criminal record.
It was industrialization that first drew attention to the condition of juveniles that led to early consideration on the treatment of children. This concern influenced all aspects of social life including law and eventually led to the creation of the juvenile justice system.
It was the British who offered its colonies age ten (10) as the minimum age of criminal responsibility. In 1963 Britain and most of Europe was rocked by the murder of two-year old James Buler.
Buler’s murder and the subsequent imprisoning of the two killers; both aged 10, led to calls for the minimum age of criminal responsibility to be raised. British law makers have resisted these calls to this day.
However most of Europe acted and raised their minimum age of criminal responsibility. Today on average the age of criminal responsibility across Europe is 14. Interesting to note that the exceptions include Sweden where it is 15 and Belgium and Portugal 16.
England has the lowest minimum age for criminal responsibility in Europe. Thus, the first point I want to pay attention to is the age of criminal responsibility in Europe was influenced by historical events in Europe.
The second point I want to make is that there are generally two approaches to this age of responsibility issue. The first one is the rigid model. This model exists in Scotland and Ireland. With this model a child could be convicted of a criminal offence from age 12, without an assessment on whether he/she is capable of understanding the wrongfulness of his/her behavior. Then there is the flexible minimum age limit. Years ago the then Commissioner of the Council of Europe’s Human Rights said he had “extreme difficulties in accepting that a child 12 or 13 can be criminally culpable for his actions, in the same sense as an adult.”
It was such thinking that encouraged the National Social Workers of Australia to champion this flexible model. The NSW held that if the government was going to place the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 12 years, then it must allow the flexible age period to remain.
This flexible period holds that children cannot be prosecuted unless the state can prove they can understand their actions and there consequences.
So, in the context of Guyana we must ask our parliamentarians on both sides of the aisle, which of the alternatives are you championing? Europe resorted to its history for guidance, what did you rely on in suggesting Guyana embrace age 12 or14 as our minimum age of criminal responsibility?
Respectfully,
Claudius Prince.

---

---