Children suspected of crimes are believed to be more resilient and sometimes even more sophisticated than other young people. However, the exact opposite is true, says Elly Farmer, an NSPCC psychologist, writing in a special edition of the Journal of Children’s Services.

Young people caught up in the justice system are in fact much more vulnerable than the average child, and more likely to have been abused, neglected, or exposed to violence. One study found that children who have experienced extreme physical or psychological abuse were 11 times more likely to be arrested for a violent crime than those who had not, as suggested in a randomised control trial.

Maltreatment can lead to changes in the body’s stress response systems, thereby resulting in either an over-reactive stress system, or an under-reactive stress system. An over-reactive stress system can lead to impulsive aggression and post-traumatic stress disorder. While an under-reactive stress system may lead to lack of empathy, non-responsiveness to punishment and instrumental aggression.

Thus a highly reactive stress system can be the cause of behaviour problems, and is often a symptom found among offending children. Young people involved in crime may also suffer from more mental health problems, and learning disabilities than the average child.

Age is also a factor. The younger a child is when they commit their first offence, the more likely they are to have endured severe adversity and developmental damage. Children who start offending at very young age are also more likely to commit serious crimes and be more persistent offenders.

According to Farmer, the UK youth justice system is both failing to prevent offending by children and young people and falling short of safeguarding their welfare. Systematically prosecuting vulnerable children, even if it is within the more child-friendly youth courts, is in conflict with the human rights of these children. For example, the increased suggestibility of children who have suffered abuse, compromises their rights to a fair trial.

In some instances, having a long record of adversities throughout childhood is used to “justify a more punitive approach to young offenders, perhaps because they are viewed as signs of irredeemable damage” Farmer warns.

Time and money spent on the persecution of young offenders might be better used if the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) would be raised to at least 12 years old, and the issues that these children face would be addressed through family and community based interventions that are known to work [See: Juvenile Justice: what works and what doesnʼt].

Martin Narey, the head of Barnardo’s, UKs largest children’s charity, has suggested the criminal age of responsibility should be lifted to 12 years, with the exception of those that are accused for the most serious crimes. According to Farmer this would “constitute a particularly heinous form of discrimination as these children are likely to be the most vulnerable.”

It could also be suggested that the age of criminal responsibility should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. However, Farmer deems this approach as not just expensive but also in breach of the principle of non-discrimination. Bias towards certain groups of children can easily creep into supposedly objective assessments that nevertheless will contain much opinion and subjectivity. Farmer also dismisses recommendations to improve the youth justice system without revising the MACR, made by the Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behavior, as not going far enough.

Why then, despite all the evidence, UK politicians’ and public attitude to crime and youth crime is so punitive and the MACR at only 10 years old has not been challenged [See also: Will UK politicians get the message on child murder?] According to Farmer this is explained by the fact that: “Fear in relation to youth crime has been heightened by high profile cases and their treatment by the media.”

So here is hoping that the current aftermath of the UK riots - where one in five (22%) of the people trialed for offences committed during the riots are aged 10 to 17, and excessive sentencing of young people who have had no prior contact with the criminal justice system has been cheered on – will not be used as further justification to cement the current low age of MACR in the UK.

References:
Farmer, E. (2011). The age of criminal responsibility: developmental science and human rights perspectives. Journal of Children’s Services: Special edition on youth justice 6(2), 86-95.

Bell, I. (2011). Estimates of initial court hearing outcomes for suspects involved in recent disturbances - data as at Midday 5 September 2011. Ministry of Justice statistical release. Accessible at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/moj...

Smith D. (ed) (2010). A New Response to Youth Crime. Cullompton: Willan.