# data[].attributes.body
I would personally keep the age of criminal liability to 15 years old or even set the age of criminal liability to either 16 or 17 years old. My reasoning behind this motive is that teenagers around this age usually tend to start making decisions for themselves. 14 or even 15 years old and below is just plain wrong since teenagers' brains are still developing at these ages.

These kids shouldn't be put in jail (yet?), rather, they should be assisted through DSWD.

# data[].attributes.body
As a president I would like to keep the criminal liability at 15 years old. There a lot of factors and according to UNICEF, "Scientific studies show that brain function reaches maturity only at around 16 years old, affecting children’s reasoning and impulse control. Proposals to lower the age of criminal responsibility argue that children as young as 9 years old are criminally mature and are already capable of discernment. If this was the case, then why is the legal age to enter marriage, legal contracts and employment in the Philippines at 18 years old? A 9-year old child has not yet even reached the age of puberty and their brains are not developed to understand the consequences of actions".

Detention will not teach youngsters responsibility for their conduct. Children must grow up in a caring, nurturing, and protecting environment in order to maximize their ability to contribute to nation-building. Strong parenting support programs, as well as access to health, education, and social services, as well as child-friendly judicial and social welfare systems, are required. The labeling of children as criminals absolves adults of responsibility for their protection. We fail to protect children's rights and well-being if we punish children who have been used by criminal gangs rather than the people who mistreated them. We as adults fail our children if we don't comprehend the underlying reasons for how and why youngsters commit crimes.

# data[].attributes.body
For me, I think I would keep the age of criminal liability at 15 years old. A lot of reason can be argued on why 15 but I think one of the reasons since its age of puberty. Ages 10-12 is still so young and could affect the child's growing development. According to UNICEF "Sadly, lowering the age of criminal responsibility is an act of violence against children. Children in conflict with the law are already victims of circumstance, mostly because of poverty and exploitation by adult crime syndicates."

Speaking of criminal liability, should children be punished for acting based on how they were affected growing up? In a perspective are they also responsible for doing what adults forced them to? threatened to, and other related things that harm them to make them do their biddings. Sometimes it isnt fair and It should be taken in consideration

# data[].attributes.body
Pinpointing a certain age that would impose liability on an individual is a sticky subject as there will always be norms, patterns, and commonalities in the way people are, but there would be outliers as well. As this is quite a popular topic of interest in this day and age, especially because of countless crimes committed by minors, I place my support on the stance of increasing the age of criminal liability in the Philippines.

In a human’s childhood, they are impressionable and incredibly susceptible to influence from actions and words that they observe around them. Moreso, they are more likely to continue acting in a certain way if this is positively reinforced and encouraged by the authority figures in charge of them. According to Rymanowicz (2015), if a child overhears another child swearing, he might learn new words, but may not necessarily use them, but if, however, the child gets some sort of reward for swearing, such as acceptance or encouragement from an adult, an observing child might be more likely to copy this behavior. Parents or guardians are solely responsible for how a human behaves and grows up to be. It is a matter of nature versus nurture. People question why some people commit crimes while others don’t, it’s NURTURE because the fact is, we are all human. We all have a commonality in that sense, but differ in terms of our exposure in our formative years which we bring with us once we are adults and ‘supposed’ contributing members of society.

Now leading to the matter of criminal liability, should someone be punished for acting based on how they were raised? What is all that they know? What is all that they were surrounded with and exposed to? Is it fair for that person? External factors should also be taken into consideration. Was the child coerced? Forced? Blackmailed? Threatened? Assaulted? Desperate? Unless afflicted with some sort of mental disability, there is always a reason or motive for each and every action.

At this point one now asks: “What about those young adults who acted out of irresponsible reasons such as impressing someone or taking out their anger in that brief window of rage?”. We cannot fall prey to inductive reasoning that antagonizes and generalizes a whole age group based on the actions of a handful of people, everyone is affected because of one’s actions. An analogy would be like how one person catches COVID-19 because of laxely following safety precautions, consequently another lockdown would be mandated and people would be affected in their own ways including their jobs, education, leisure, etc. Bottomline, based on the points I have presented, the age for criminal liability should be raised and definitely not lowered.

REFERENCES:

https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/monkey_see_monkey_do_model_behavior_in_early_childhood

# data[].attributes.body
To be honest, I would rather keep the age of criminal liability at 15.

There are a lot reasons why the criminal liability should be 15 or even higher. Ages 10-12 are still too young and could change a whole lot in one's personality and affects one's mental health. There is so much we can do to help and change the children.

There could be other factors such as adults making younger kids do the work for them. As we all know kids tend to follow adults or older kids because they think what the other's are doing are correct. Adults could be at fault and kids will pay for what the adults did which I think is just entirely wrong.

Another factor would be parents failing to watch over, take care, and teach their child.  So really, it would be the parent's fault for not being able to do their job properly. If the parent's were not their like deceased or abandoned the children, the guardians would be at fault for they have the responsibility over the children.

I think that 15 or even higher would be better than 10-12 because there are so much things able to do to assist and help the child.

# data[].attributes.body
Personally, I would keep the age of criminal liability at 15, and I am actually inclined to increase it to around 18 years old.

First of all, let us consider the children aged 10-12, who would be affected if the age of criminal liability was lowered. From a developmental perspective, they are usually just starting puberty. 12 year olds are barely adolescents, and as such, do not have the cognitive development that comes with puberty, which includes abstract thinking, having more complex thinking processes and developing their own ideas and perspectives.

At that age, children are still learning or haven’t even begun learning how to think for themselves without the help of adults. As such, their rationale on what is right and wrong isn’t actually their own, but what their parents, guardians or other people have taught them. Personally, I don’t think it is right to hold someone accountable for being easily influenced into doing bad or illegal activities, especially children.

Another thing is how damning a criminal record is for a person to have. A criminal record can last for your entire lifetime, and affects many things such as your education and employment. A child aged 10-12 can’t fully grasp the consequences of any criminal actions they may have done, especially if it follows them for life and affects their education and career, things that are important for living a comfortable and even successful life.

Punishing a child for something they do not fully understand, especially with something that can affect the rest of their lives, isn’t something that I consider just or right. I think someone should only be considered liable and accountable for a wrongdoing when they are aware of the implications and consequences of their actions to other people, which I do not believe children the age of 10-12 are fully capable of.

# data[].attributes.body
To be straight to the point, I believe in the notion that children should never be liable to being subjected to jail time.  I believe that these children aged 15 and below are usually coerced and molded by external factors considering the environment they grew up in, the people surrounding the child as they grow up and raised in their own image, the people they meet as they grow older and the vastly differing situation for each child. It's also important to note that these children are not fully developed yet, and their mental capacity, comprehension and such are much less matured compared to an adult. Though, it's been suggested that children as young as 9 years old are mature enough to discern right and wrong in which I truly disagree with because at that age a child has no responsibilities, experience, moral compass and SHOULD NOT be apprehended for doing something that they don't even know is wrong yet.

A good example of this case is in a 10 year old boy named Ray, who has dabbled in  acts of stealing, robbing homes and more. Seemingly troublesome and naturally evil, Ray actually comes from a troubled background, having grown up with an alcoholic father and a deadbeat mother. Leading to his escape from a capture attempt, this encouraged Ray to become more confident and arrogant, taking drugs and being peer pressured by his friends constantly. He was eventually captured. In cases like this, doesn't it seem fair to be lenient at the very least and try to correct the child's behavior and way  of thinking rather than forcing them into a violent and unfamiliar environment that could lead these children to worse situations rather than fixing them? Thankfully, laws implemented were changed to adjust the age of criminal responsibility. I firmly believe that it should remain this way for all the generations to come.

Based on the principle of restorative justice — “that a child can reform, (that) a child may have committed (a crime) because of his or her inability to truly understand the implications”, explained by Ms. Andal-Castro. Another example that could attest to my point is Michael, 11, who jumps from truck to truck to steal goods for his family. When asked why he does it, he says "Because we're short on money," and "it's fun." Seeing these acts be committed and rationalized by a child through reasons like addiction and thrill is truly alarming and makes you feel bad for these people that were brought up in such unfortunate circumstances. Again, I raise the question, would be better to send such a child corrupted and led to believe in opposite norms due to a sad situation to imprisonment? No. First of all I think it would mean a lot psychologically for the child to see that someone cares for him or her without being pressured or emboldened to do something.

To summarize, I think that the age for criminal responsibility should either remain the same or be raised to combat the unnecessary violence and bad influence that could be found in incarceration.  Children should be rehabilitated and guided rather than pushing and forcefully pushing a mindset into them.

Sources:
-  Lowering the age of criminal responsibility is against child rights: UNICEF
- The Philippines’ little delinquents, committing some of the most brazen crimes - CNA (channelnewsasia.com)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lowering the age of criminal responsibility is against child rights: UNICEF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Statement attributable to Ms. Lotta Sylwander
Representative, UNICEF Philippines

# data[].attributes.body
Given the opportunity to lead the country and change the age of liability, I would not touch it.

Let us consider the fact that children have been used by syndicates and gangs. While this means the children are involved in crime, lets not forget that a majority of these children are in poverty. They are in a vulnerable position, and can be easily exploited because of their economic position and the fact they are children.

There is also the principle of the matter. If we were to simply make it so that we can arrest more people, children at that, then not only has the justice system failed, we have also given up on any possibility of improvement.

Let's not forget that prison is already damaging enough to adults. Inflicting that kind of mental distress on children is outright unethical and pointless. It is preferable that we rehabilitate children rather than imprison. Rehabilitation would put them on a path back to normalcy, whereas arrest would either exacerbate the issue that lead to the crime or outright traumatize the child.

In short, children can be forced into crime one way or another, lowering the age of responsibility is not a real solution and is an ineffective response to a symptom of the problem, and arresting children is a worse response in comparison to rehabilitation.

# data[].attributes.body
As the president of the country, criminal liability should be addressed to the nation since it includes important factors which will determine the future of today's society.  I would want to raise the age of criminal liability to more than 15 years old.

Our society in the Philippines has many issues on its people and our youth. A perspective of a third world country that is overpopulated with a number of uneducated people. I feel like lowering down the age of criminal liability does not support justice which are given to children who are affected by this. There are tendencies that children below 15 hasn't known what they have done. Its also defining about the difference from right and wrong. Most children still don't know if they're doing a malicious act.

As lowering the criminal liability for children is unnecessary, it also affects the rights of children. Children below 12 haven't developed their thinking in decision making. They're still in the stage of learning from someone teaching them and learning from experience. Also, Due to behavioral challenges that result in psychological dilemmas, children in puberty are vulnerable to committing crimes.

To consider the fact that children below 15 are still young, they can still be traumatized by the punishment that are given to them. They could develop a fear factor in their mind that they couldn't rebuild their life for a better since their lives were taken away at an early age. They should still be given a chance on education and on rehabilitation if the action was further.

The government should also be in-charge of the safety and rights of violence related to children. They should look at it from the perspective of the children. It should be justified and in consideration that children are more victims than perpetrators of violence. They should also learn that locking up more children into prison does not solve the criminality in the area.

To conclude, I feel like lowering down the age of criminal liability does not support justice which are given to children who are affected by this. As lowering the criminal liability for children is unnecessary, it also affects the rights of children. They should also learn that locking up more children into prison does not solve the criminality in the area.

# data[].attributes.body
As the president of the country, I would keep the age of criminal liability at 15. There are many reasons as to why I would keep it that way.

First and foremost, those aged 10-12 are still children who aren’t able to decide rationally and aren’t completely knowledgeable or understanding of the seriousness of their mistakes. At that age, their brains are still developing and have not completely matured. The people who should be held accountable for the mistakes of a child should be the parents. It is the responsibility of the parents to raise their children properly and discipline them. Teaching them, especially about what is right and wrong, is also another responsibility of the parent.

Secondly, with the developing brains of children, putting them through the harsh conditions of being an inmate can lead them to rebelling as well as think more about their anger towards those who put them through what they are going through rather than thinking about their actions and its consequences. It can also negatively impact the mental health and mental growth of the child.

Thirdly, their brains are still undergoing development so it would be absolutely wrong to ruin their future by giving them a criminal record when they can’t even have a full understanding of the consequences of their actions. Besides that, it would affect their growth and they might even be negatively influenced by the inmates. It would be much better to discipline them in some way that can help them rather than risk their growth and their future.

Instead of punishing the minors for their mistakes, it is best to help them grow into a better person.

# data[].attributes.body
When given the opportunity to lead the country, I would not move the age of criminal liability. I would simply want the age of 15 to be the legal age of criminal liability and if even asked to raise it, I would be open to the possibility.

Lowering the age of criminal liability is just unnecessary and could even harm other minors that are still not aware of the wrong acts that they are doing. Lowering it seems wrong and inappropriate for the current generation.

In deciding on the proper age of criminal liability, one of the main factors that are to be considered is the common age of maturity for everyone. Maturity is one of the most important phases of a person’s life as it is when a person starts to become knowledgeable about whether he/she is able to do the right or wrong thing. In my opinion, when an individual is already able to distinguish right from wrong, that is the appropriate age to move the age of criminal liability. Although the age of maturity for everyone varies depending on the person, as others are able to mature in the early stages of their life while others are able to mature at a later age, and we call them late bloomers. These late bloomers would be extremely affected negatively when the age of criminal liability is lowered as most of them are not yet aware of these wrong acts but they would still be penalized. It would be just extremely unfair for these individuals when the age of criminal liability is lowered, as they would not be given the opportunity to learn and improve on their mistakes.

The lowering of the age of criminal liability to ages 10-12 is just wrong and inappropriate as these are the ages that kids first start to explore the world and its different possibilities. This is not yet the time to give out punishments but it is the time to learn and understand the different consequences of every action. Discipline cannot be achieved through punishment, but with the guidance of adults, we can develop law-abiding citizens who love their country. It is time to make different mistakes as these are the learning stages in life. No one is ever perfect but we try to be close to that “perfect” version of ourselves. The journey to our “perfect” self involves making a number of mistakes that a person should learn and improve on.

The only reason that others prefer lowering the age of criminal liability is purely based on Composition and Division fallacy. They believe that when an individual lower than the age of 15 commits a crime, the majority of the people in this age group are also able to commit a crime. This mindset is just simply irrational as they are just generalizing people and are even willing to bring down the age of criminal liability. The wrong acts of other people never speak for the whole.

To conclude, when given the opportunity to lead the country, I would not lower the age of criminal liability as it is extremely irrational and inappropriate for our current generation. People's opinions on lowering the age of criminal liability merely represent Composition and Division fallacies as people only speculate that those under the age of 15 are capable of committing crimes based on a few criminal cases below this age group. In addition, these stages in the life of an individual are the time for learning and making mistakes as no one is ever perfect, it is the time for them to mature. Although the age of maturity differs for every person, which is why lowering the age of criminal liability will harm those who are late bloomers. These individuals do not need punishments, they need the proper guidance from their parents and guardians to help them live their lives on the right path. Punishment never helps develop a person, but having a second chance gives a person the opportunity to undo and redeem him/herself from that mistake.

# data[].attributes.body
As the president of the Philippines, I would raise the age of criminal liability to 16.

I don't think lowering the age to 10-12 would be a good idea. These kids are still developing and are clueless on what is right and wrong. Kids are easy to manipulate. You teach them something bad, and they'll think it's correct. However, that doesn't give them the excuse to be forgiven for committing such crimes. The law is the law. Instead of prisons, they should be placed in correctional centers. We should teach kids the rights and wrongs to prevent them from doing such acts.

Increasing the age of criminal liability to 18 would be a bad idea as well. Kids should already be aware of what's right and wrong at the age of 16. There's a possibility that some would abuse the system and commit crimes knowing they won't get jailed for being a lower age. Such acts cannot be allowed if I were president.

Age 16 would be a perfect age for them to face the consequences of their actions. It may sound too young, but at this age they can already make their own decisions. They should already be aware what they're doing is wrong and should face punishments.

To sum it all up, I would raise the criminal liability age to 16. Instead of imprisoning children ages 15 and below, we should place them in correctional centers to guide them to living a better life. However if they still commit such acts above the age of 16-plus. There is nothing more we can do but bring them to jail.

# data[].attributes.body
As the leader of my country, I think lowering the age of liability to 12 years old would benefit my citizens and some of the delinquents.

In Manila, I saw acts of crimes that are committed by children, crimes like stealing, physical assault, vehicle-window breaking, and many more. There are also viral videos of children engaging in some gang wars, their acts involved fighting, throwing burning projectiles, etc... But, after they have done it all, other citizens can't do anything about it, they're just gonna repeat it over and over because they know that they won't suffer any consequences. I agree that they are still children that don't know the impact of what their doing, they are ignorant of this world. But what if the child have some bad parents? Who's going to educate them? who's gonna tell them that they are wrong? would their parents really spend time to discipline them? I think that rarely happens.

I'm making this decision for the sake of my people and for the future of those delinquents. Most of those incidents involving minors are results of bad parenting, being homeless, and too much influence. Children's mind are still going through development so they still don't know what is right and wrong,
all they want is to have fun or imitate something that looks cool to them. This immature behavior will make them a delinquent if left uneducated, if those acts of crime have been done repeatedly, then it is safe to say that their parents are not doing a good job because a parent must guide you to be a decent human, not some kind of criminal at a very young age.

I don't want to give these children punishment at a very young age, rather I want to give them education or rehabilitation. Youth detention centers should be able to teach them the discipline they missed from their parents. If a child at the age of 12 committed a crime, he will be educated about it, how it's gonna affect his/her parents, the victim, and how he's/she's gonna make up for it.

I also want to educate the parents about proper parenting, since they should also be held responsible for the actions of their child. In the detention centers, I want them to have a special session where both the parent and child are.

To sum it all up, I just want the best for both the citizens and children. I will lower the age of liability to 12, so that they can be guided on how to be a law abiding citizen at young age. Children won't be detained in jails where they are punished and won't get treated like adults since it might just worsen their case, instead I want them to be detained in detention centers, inside there, they will be guided and rehabilitated, these detention centers would teach them the discipline they missed from their parents and they will be taught about the the consequences of their actions. The victims of those children feel powerless, since they can't do anything about it even if they are victims of crime . I pity those children since their actions reflect on their parents, they probably don't receive parental guidance, I want to make up for the lack of their parents, I don't want them to grow up thinking that they can always break the law.

# data[].attributes.body
As the president of the country I will increase the age of criminal liability at the age to 18. At this age most people already have developed the sense of right and wrong.

Lowering it to 10-12 is a bad idea, because many of these children could have been brought up in environments where-in they do not learn what right or wrong is. These children that commit crimes at a early age can still be reformed into good citizens. Many people have to break laws due to their living conditions, and many of these people are underaged. It is unfair to put these children in jail, due to the failure of the its country, and government.

Instead of imprisoning children we should focus in teaching them what is right or wrong. Putting children in jail at such a young age can develop them into worse people, since these children will grow up in prison outside of society, making them more anti-social. It will also affect their growth in to adulthood since prison is not a place where a child.

It will also depend on the severity of the crime. People who commit petty crime should not be placed in prison, because it could have been done in necessity or was forced into doing these crimes due to their environment.

I understand lowering or keeping it at 15, but I believe people in this age range can still be turned to good, and become a better person for the future.

# data[].attributes.body
As the president of my country, I would keep the age of criminal liability at 15. In my opinion, 15 is the perfect age for people to start knowing about the rights and wrongs.

I believe that lowering it to 12 is too low as these kids are still learning about what is right and what is wrong. They haven't reached the age where they do actions on their own. They still copy what other people do such as their friends, family, or other adults.

Bringing children as low as the age of 10-12 to jail could scar them for the rest of their life. They may have some traumatic experiences while they're in jail which could do more harm than good towards them. In their perspective, they're being punished very hard for something that they copied from other adults which they wouldn't have known was wrong.

On the other hand, 18 years old is already a little too late. When people are teenagers around the age of 15, they already start making their own decisions and know whether what they're doing is right or wrong. Having the age of criminal liability be 18 could lead to plenty of teenagers committing crimes and knowing that they could  get away with it.

15 years old is perfectly in the middle of not being too early nor being too late. They aren't young enough to be influenced by other adults to do wrong things. And it also isn't too late for 15-17 year old, who already know the consequences for their actions, to abuse the fact that they won't be punished for the things that they have done.

# data[].attributes.body
As a leader of the country who's there to guide and put the people of my nation on the right path I would boldly claim that the age of 15 is the lowest age at which an individual could get punished when committing a crime.  Now, for my reasons why would I keep it like that is because children still have developing brains and the early years of their lives are a critical time for brain development, their brains still need a lot of remodelling before it can function as an adult brain. With this said, their undeveloped minds will have a big factor on what they decide to do, thus making careless decisions that may lead to criminal acts. Another point I have is that children in conflict with the law are already victims of circumstance mostly because of poverty and exploitation by adult crime syndicates. Children who are exploited and driven by adults to commit crimes need to be protected, not further penalized. Instead they should be given a second chance to reform and to rehabilitate.

Lowering the age of criminal responsibility is against child rights. We will be taking away their freedom to grow more as better individuals. It will be such a huge waste if we choose to throw these unsprouted minds behind bars they will do nothing but rot, leaving hope for them to grow and learn from their mistakes. This is why it is very important to guide children to the right path at an early age. According to a study by child psychologists is that between the age of 3-11 years is an imprint period. This means that whatever a child may experience between those ages are likely to have an impact on who that child becomes, how they feel, and how they represent themselves to the world as. If we fail to understand the underlying reasons how and why children commit crime, we as adults, fail the youth of our society.

Instead of putting our attention on what age to put children on custody we should focus on leading them to the right path and give them a healthy environment at an early age so they could imprint on that good values and bring them to adulthood properly. It is our responsibility as adults to make them better versions of ourselves so society could progress and just keep on improving.

This also poses a threat to the mental health of children nationwide because then they will fear the law and become unconfident with every move they do. This poses a great threat to them because children in nature are extremely curious about things since their brains at that age receive and store a lot of information around them.

To sum it all up, I completely stand my ground on setting the lowest age possible to be punished by the law is 15 years old. I think this age is the best where teenagers are now aware of their actions, thus making them liable if they commit crimes against the law. Setting this as the lowest age will give children 15 years old and younger more chances to learn from their mistakes. We should also understand that people below that age still have an immature and developing mind. My goal as a president is to take care and discipline the children of society fairly and just in order to make the nation a better place for generations to come.

References:
HuffPost(2017) The Imprint Period: HuffPost. Retrieved from
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/gemma-bailey/the-imprint-period_b_14242854.html

UNICEF The Convention on the Rights of the Child: The children’s version. Retrieved from
https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text-childrens-version

# data[].attributes.body
If I were to be the president of the country and faced with the issue of deciding whether or not the criminal liability should be kept at the age of 15 or lowered to the age of 10-12, I would much rather raise it just slightly to 16. It is a scientifically proven fact that 16 year olds are at a level of maturity in which they are liable for their own actions. Lowering the age of criminal liability will step into the bounds of emotional abuse and trauma.

While it can be argued that a high age of responsibility can also lead to abuse of younger people by either being forced to do criminal acts by older peers or creating a culture of crime among similar-aged peers, the mental trauma of being heavily punished as a developing child can be extremely damaging to their mental growth. Not only is there a risk of mental disorders being developed from the constant fear, loneliness, and solitude, there is also a great risk of being further negatively influenced by peers also in the prison. Early-to-middle teens are at a stage where their ideals, mental health, and cognitive functions are very volatile so a stressful situation may prove to be detrimental to their overall growth.

However, it is not to say that people ages below 16 should not be responsible. Children are very much capable of thinking and therefore their actions should be addressed and taken into account but also not disregarding their age. Correctional methods for adults should not be the same for developing children as they are at completely stages in life and therefore should be punished less severely but not necessarily in a less impactful way. Overall, a still-developing person should not be held the same accountability as a fully developed person but should still be given appropriate repercussions for the gravity of their actions.

# data[].attributes.body
If I were to be the President,  I would address the situation on the age for criminal liability to be kept at the age 15. As a young adult, you are becoming more aware of your actions including the basic morals of your life. By that age, you most likely already have an idea of what is right and what is wrong. There are places like juvenile and rehabilitation where naughty teenagers who have committed crime end up. Instead of actual jail, it is a separate place from the actual jail where adults are.

As young adults, it is right to stand up for yourself and face the consequences of your actions that you are liable for. This should be a lesson to them if ever they were to encounter such a thing. Crime rates would still be the same since the age gap would remain the same but for this reason alone, it will also give those that turn age 15 the alert on what they can get themselves into.

There are also many cases where children at young ages are targeted or hired by adults for the sake of committing a crime. These scenarios have been being abused throughout the years but as a 15 year old, which is not so far away from 18, you would already be exposed to how reality works when crimes are committed. There is also a saying where it is not right to hold children accountable for their actions. By this age, you can already think of the simple morals, either it was taught to you through your parents or through school. By this age you would also be a little more involved into a young adult crowd where you can also decide for yourself.

With this, if it were to put some criminal image on children at these age, it has to be handled a little more lightly than actual adult criminals depending on the crime they have committed. There should be a consequence for their action such as rehabilitation or community service as examples. All these consequences would vary depending on the level of crime they have or had committed.

# data[].attributes.headline
Talapian, Rafael "Our generation should be taught not caught."

# data[].attributes.subject
Talapian, Rafael "Our generation should be taught not caught."

# data[].attributes.body
As president of the country I am increasing the age of crinimal liability to 18.

Now I understand that everyone is capable in commiting acts of evil irregardless of age, but to understand the gravity is the difference of the action.

Children arent fully aware about the of their own actions and are in the stage where learning helps them become adults. Naturally I believe that in that stage, children should be able to learn without the consequences being Jail. Besides a child fully develops at the age of 18, which means they have the capacity to determine right and wrong, as well as the consequences of their actions. I doubt putting a child behind bars at such a young age wont do any good to anyone for the matter.

Im sure being incarcerated in such a young age would negatively affect ones mental health. A study conducted by Barnert et. al shows that youth and adults with cumulative jail times show over all worse mental & physical health statues. I doubt a child living their childhood in jail would yield benefits as soon as they come out of it, due to their environment impedeing their growth as well as create negative influences to them. Instead children who commit crimes should undergo counseling, therapy and other similar institutions rather subjecting them to the justice system. That is why we show much more consideration to children, we dont beret or hurt them when they do something wrong, we sit down teach them about the wrongness of their actions, and give them second chances. Yes tough love is a very valid teaching tool to children as to make them cautious of actions, but sending them to jail isnt a valid teaching option. They are unaware and do not fully grasp their actions so imprisoning them would be unfair wouldnt benefit anyone in any scenario. A point I would like to mention is instead of subjecting the child to the justice system, the parents should be subjected instead. Parents play a huge part in forming their child, and you can tell how the parents are like based on how their child is. They are responsible of how they raise their children therefore should take accountability of their child.

I do understand the idea of lowering the age liability. It's to deter criminal behavior as well as lowering crimes by lowering the entry level to be subjugated to the justice system. However from my earlier statements, the proposal will only exacerbate the issue its trying to solve, as children who grow up in jail will ingrain their environment to themselves, studies have shown that as well. I do understand that sometimes the environment of the child would make them commit crimes as they could be impoverish. In response I would propose for these kinds of cases to be handled by other institutions rather than the justice system.

In short, I believe that everyone possesses humanity. Children arent knowledgeable in knowing the extent of their actions hence their actions can be excused due to their sense of morality not being fully developed. Adults on the otherhand have a greater personhood (humanity) than children therefore making them liable to their responsibilities. Therefore Children shouldnt be judged by their actions as much as adults, due to having"lesser" personhood than adults.

# data[].attributes.body
As the president of the Philippines, I would raise the age of criminal liability to 18 for the following reasons

The minds of children are not fully developed, and thus should not be given a full punishment. Yes children have the capacity to think for themselves and distinguish what is right and wrong if taught properly. But because they are still at such an early stage of their life, they will not always be able to comprehend the consequences of their actions.

Getting imprisoned can be a stain to a person’s reputation and could affect future aspects of their life. Subjecting them to this and diminishing their future opportunities from such a young age is unfair. Having a permanent record of being a juvenile delinquent could prevent them from being employed or have an actual career. Opportunities like getting a loan or making a big purchase could be so much harder for them. Things like adopting a child that could enrich their lives will be difficult in the future for them to do simply because they made a significant mistake in their childhood that they could not erase.

Children who break laws out of necessity due to their poor financial status should also not be put through further difficulties. Many people scraping by in poverty are forced to steal needed resources like clean food and clothes because they simply do not have enough money to buy them. They resort to being criminals because they were put in unjust circumstances because of events they had no part in. Lowering the age of liability only allows these children to be punished even further instead of preventing them from committing these acts like the change intended to.

Instead of lowering the age of criminal liability to discipline children even more, the focus should be on creating an effective rehabilitation plan for the youth that does not include giving them a criminal record. The government should make an effort to help them become proper members of society, instead of outright labeling them as delinquents from the start.

Changing the minimum age of criminal liability is a roundabout way of solving systemic issues relating to the youth and poverty by only looking at surface level problems. Instead the government should be assessing why so many children commit these crimes in the first place. From there programs should be created to solve these problems as to eliminate or at least reduce the need or desire for them to do these acts.

# data[].attributes.body
As president of a country, I would either keep the criminal age of liability at 15 or raise it to 18. We cannot blame children under the age of 15 responsible for a wrongdoing because the vast majority are unaware of the laws and regulations that apply to them when they are out in public.

At the age of 9 or 10, children understand that rules are necessary to ensure that everyone gets along and that there is no chaos. The more they function in the world outside the family, the more they need to learn structure and rules to deal with it. At the age of 14 or 15, the average child begins to consider the struggles of right and wrong. They understand that few things are pure and that we sometimes follow the rules because it's the right thing to do, and other times because it's not the right thing to do.

Lowering the age of criminal liability is difficult for children aged 10 to 12 since they feel pressured every time they go out in public. Children aged 10 to 12 do not have sufficient knowledge of laws and regulations as they are still developing at different stages of maturity.  Due to their deplorable surroundings, the majority of young people commit crimes. Domestic violence, parental indifference, peer pressure, and a lack of education are all factors that contribute to crime in a society.

We know that adolescents are still developing and can only judge their actions. We also know that they are highly adaptable and rehabilitable. Forcing youths to stop criminal behavior is difficult because most of them have no idea what laws they have violated. However, we do have the capacity to change the environment so that they can follow a path that leads to a better life. I mean that youths are unsure of right and wrong, so bringing them to a better environment, rehabilitation could help them reduce the country's crime rate.

In general, lowering criminal liability will not eliminate the possibility of youths committing a specific crime, but providing children with the best positive environment will solve and change youths' behavior so that they do not commit the crime. Teenagers are still developing, unlike adults, who are fully aware of the consequences of breaking the law.

# data[].attributes.body
If I am the president of the country, I will keep the age of 15 as the lowest age at which someone who violated the law will be imprisoned or punished. For me, lowering it to 10-12 years old is too much for kids to handle at a young age. They are too immature to be held responsible for any crime. At the age of 10-12, kids are more curious and developing and can be easily exposed to bad influences that may harm their lives and future. Honestly, when I was at that age, I was getting into a lot of trouble since I was just curious about life and I didn’t know that this was supposed to be “Right” or “Wrong”. They can make mistakes and commit heinous crimes, because they didn’t know better.

Children can be misguided and heavily influenced by the people around them and what kind of environment they live in. Why should children be accountable at an early age when it is the responsibility of the parents or guardian to handle their own children? They should be educated not punished. They are not even considered teenagers but kids. I am more open to exposing them to different programs that may potentially help and guide them to the right path. Starting from giving them proper education. Giving them the opportunity to learn and grow will help build their foundation as a person. This will give them a realization that the life they have been living so far, exposed them to greater threats that may ruin their life. That is why alternative programs will give them more benefit to reflect more at a young age compared to getting locked up and blaming everything around them for why their life is like that.

Now, if the child committed a serious crime, instead of sending them straight to the detention center, send them to government facilities where they would be properly taken care of. Sending ages 10-12 years old to detention centers will just scare them and might cause early mental disorders that wouldn’t be good for their mental health especially having a criminal record at an early age would give them less opportunities in later years in life. Every crime must be punished and there is no such thing as a free pass especially if it involves serious crimes like murder, drugs, etc. They will serve at community centers which is heavily facilitated by the government for children to learn how to be responsible. So not only would they be given a chance to learn, they will also be given a chance to get their life back.

# data[].attributes.body
As president of this country, I would keep the age of criminal liability at 15 years old and if possible, raise it to at least 18 years old because I believe that lowering the age of criminal liability is very unreasonable and inappropriate to do.

The reason why I want to keep the age of criminal liability to 15 and above is because any age below 15 is still considered immature. People around that age group especially 9–12-year-olds are still developing and has no proper sense of what is “right” and “wrong”. According to advocatesforyouth.org, most teens at the age of 13-17 attain cognitive maturity which is the ability to make decision based on knowledge of options and their consequences. However, even though teens around this age group attain cognitive maturity, they can still be easily influenced by peers since they are still developing even though they attained maturity since according to the University of Rochester, the rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed until at least the age of 25.

These kids and teenagers who commit crimes are in my opinion, still too young to face the criminal justice system. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t condone children committing crimes, but I think that we should have alternatives such as programs and such to properly educate these developing children. If anything, the parents/guardians of the teens/children are the ones who should be held accountable since they are responsible in the development of the child.

However, the parents/guardians aren’t the only factors and can be even out of their control since the environment and culture of the child plays a very big role in their development and maturity. A child exposed to an environment where committing crimes is considered “normal” and a “way of life”, will influence them to do the same thing due to them either experiencing it first hand or observing their surroundings. A child may also be committing these crimes not only for survival but because they need to due to factors such as syndicates and criminal gangs. What we should do is to take these children and as said earlier, expose them to programs and educations that will help them grow and develop positively to become responsible adult members of our society.

To sum it all up, I believe that we shouldn’t lower the age of criminal liability to below 15 and instead keep it at 15 or even raise it up to 18. Children below 15 are still developing and maturing so it is more appropriate to hold the parents/guardians of the child accountable. It is also needed to expose children to a better environment for them to develop and grow. We should give children especially those who committed/will commit crimes proper programs and education to grow and develop them to be responsible adult members of society.

References:

https://www.advocatesforyouth.org/resources/health-information/parents-16/

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051

# data[].attributes.body
Children are more susceptible to mimic the wrongdoings of others. Although many would argue that underage individuals who commit heinous crimes (such as murder, arson, etc.) should no longer be protected by law as they tend to escape punishments due to the legislation for minors and end up turning into despicable adults, we must also acknowledge the fact that it’s morally erroneous to hold them accountable for these misdemeanors as the causes of their actions may stem from the environment they were raised in—particularly from the misguidances of some adults—and many more factors that can contribute to the deplorable behavior. Hence as the leader of a nation, the age of criminal liability must be raised to 18 and above.

Before I stand for my preconceptions and point valid arguments for my reasoning, I would like to request citizens of the country to reflect on their younger selves and count how many times they’ve made grave mistakes without knowing the consequences they have to face after it. Although the gravity of criminal activities are no match for what I’m trying to convey, I simply want everyone to put themselves in a young child’s point of view and how much a child’s cognitive function is unwary and credulous. You are gullible and everything your brain processes will stay with you for a long time. It’s also backed up by science as to how the young mind (15 and below) isn’t fully developed yet.

When we lower the age of criminal liability to 10-12, we’re taking away their rights to reside freely as citizens and children. To follow the trends on juvenile delinquency is violence itself as it means that your own legislation is the reason why youth is withered. Instead of playing with toys, children will end up getting hurt by experiencing the horrendous violence behind bars that may lead to two things: death or the worsening of their characteristics (and possible future felonies) due to what they have witnessed in jail.

Should there be a case wherein an underaged individual commits a heavy crime (or depending on the weight of the felony) against the government or a person, the least inhumane implication would be to send them to a facility for them to seek professional help while being in juvenile detention. The reason why I wouldn’t send them straight to jail is due to the fact that their lives will be destroyed by the time they reach their adulthood. Again, it only depends on the gravity of their crimes. I believe that the appropriate punishment should be done when the felonies are as heavy as murder.

In addition, I would like to clarify that I’m not defending their crimes for the reason of their age but rather because of how they will reflect on it and become better individuals in the future.

Nobody is born evil. It’s by choice influenced from the factors surrounding us.

# data[].attributes.headline
Would it be right to lower the age of criminal liability? - Dimyuga, Jedrick

# data[].attributes.subject
Would it be right to lower the age of criminal liability? - Dimyuga, Jedrick

# data[].attributes.body
To be perfectly honest, as president of my nation, I believe that the age of criminal liability should remain at 15 years old; I wouldn't even be against raising said age of criminal liability a year or two more to 16 or 17.

I find the movement to lower the age of criminal liability to 10-12 as one that is absurd and unreasonable.

Although I can’t deny that it is possible for children to commit crimes, make mistakes, and hurt other people, we should be teaching them about how their actions will always yield consequences, teaching them about taking accountability, not punishing them for actions they either didn't know were wrong or had no choice but to do. Children of this age are not yet fully developed in their cognitive abilities, these kids are only barely considered teenagers. Studies show that a person’s reasoning abilities and impulse control are only developed once the brain function receahes maturity at the around the age of 16 years old. They do not know any better. It is wrong to hold these children accountable for mistake they may commit at such a young age instead of their parents, whose job it is to nurture and guide their children from committing mistakes and understanding what is right and wrong. Not only the parents either, as the educational institutions we enroll these children in should also bear the responsibility of nurturing and developing these kids and placing them on the right path in order for them to properly mature into responsible people. In the end, I believe that nobody is inherently criminal or evil, children are only more likely to perform these criminal exact when exposed to harmful and dangerous environments so early in their developing years.

Lowering the age of criminal liability wont actually do anything to deter fully grown adults from abusing children in order to make these kids commit crimes; lowering the the age of criminal liability is already considered an act of violence against these younger people, as victims of circumstance, they have been forced into a position where they have no choice but to risk themselves and commit crimes due to poverty and exploitation. (UNICEF 2019).

Our priorities should focus on helping these victims of circumstance. We should be focusing on protecting these kids from being exploited by adults, shielding them from being exposed to these harmful environments, and of course, giving them a second chance and helping them rehabilitate and join back into society as responsible people. If we were to lower the criminal age of liability from the current 15 to 10-12, this would ultimately ruin the lives of so many young people with their whole lives and futures ahead of them. By lowing the age of criminal liability, we in turn protect the cruel adults responsible for these children’s mistakes from having to take accountability and face punishment.

To conclude everything, I believe that we should not lower the criminal age of liability from 15 to 10-12. We should focus on focus on giving these kids a safer environment to grow and develop into responsible citizens, and hold the adults in charge of teaching and nurturing them accountable.

UNICEF (2019) Lowering the age of criminal responsibility is against child rights: UNICEF. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/philippines/press-releases/lowering-age-criminal-responsibility-against-child-rights-unicef

# data[].attributes.headline
Will Lowering the Age of Criminal Liability Truly be Effective? - Vicente, Gabby D.

# data[].attributes.subject
Will Lowering the Age of Criminal Liability Truly be Effective? - Vicente, Gabby D.

# data[].attributes.body
A 10-12 year old child may be subject to committing immoral or even “inhumane” acts that could potentially affect the betterment of the country. Although, are these actions being done because this is how these groups of children view the world? Or is it because there is some sort of superior or influence that is instilling these values into them for the sake of their own gain?

As the President of the Philippines, I will NOT lower the minimum age of criminal liability to 10-12 years old. Now, there will be valid counterarguments that could possibly challenge the decision that I just made. However, I will discuss and elaborate on my points in different sections to fully explain and give detail to why I decided to not lower the minimum age of criminal liability.

Starting off with my first point, I strongly believe that it is the parents/guardians’ responsibility to keep their child in check. While some may argue that it is up to the child to decide on what they are going to do and that the blame can’t be shifted to the parents/guardians, we need to keep in mind first on HOW these children even thought of doing immoral actions that would violate the law in the first place. Whenever a child is born, they don’t just open their eyes and think to themselves; “Let's go! I am about to be the biggest menace to society and no one is going to stop me!” No. That is not the case. Their behavior is mostly influenced by their surroundings and what they can see with their own two eyes. We also can’t forget that whatever is being taught to them is also an extremely crucial factor on how they decide if something is right or wrong. For example, if they were advised that killing people is justifiable because it is a form of “self-defense”; is it really the child’s fault for doing this sort of action? Granted that their hands are now stained and that they even broke one of the 10 commandments – but again, what led them to do this action in the first place? They still lack exposure to the world – they still don’t have a full grasp on what exactly is “right” or “wrong”. At the end of the day, the values and principles being handed down to them are the factors that motivated them to commit this sort of act. To find a good example on why it is truly the responsibility of the parents/guardians’; let us not go any further and just use ourselves as an example. When we were about to get vaccinated, or even when we were just simply answering reply slips – who is the one that gets the final say? Is it us? No. Authorities always reach out to the parents/guardians to get their consent first before we actually do anything. Mind you we are all on our way to college and the consent of our parents/guardians are still mandatory. So what more from 10 - 12 year old children?? I mean when we were 10 - 12 years old, what exactly were we doing? I am pretty sure some would even start to ask for forgiveness from 12,000 priests the moment they realize they just said a curse word. Now, someone could come up with the argument that there are circumstances where the parents/guardians aren’t necessarily the ones that influenced their children to do immoral acts; sources of bad influences could also come from friends or the environment around them. Well a series of socratic questions could be addressed to clarify on why this is happening. First of all, why did you let your child get exposed to that kind of environment in the first place? (Question for Clarification). Why did you not step up and tell your child to cut off connections with individuals that only promote unethical acts? (Question that  probe reasons and evidence). Did you not try teaching your child basic morals/values to avoid and discern if a certain individual is a bad influence? (Questions about Viewpoints and Perspectives). It is a lot to take in and one can even ask, “Is the responsibility of a parent/guardian really this big?” The answer is yes. So before a parent/guardian reaches this scenario, they need to ensure that they are raising their child in a really good environment and that the morals and values that they are teaching them are correct.

Now, why exactly am I opposed to lowering the criminal liability to 10 - 12 years old if the Republic Act 9344 or the Juvenile Justice Law of 2006 only states that those who are between 15 - 18 years old would only be put into intervention programs or rehabilitation centers. Well first of all, it doesn’t mean that after a certain amount of time of their rehabilitation then they are already set free. No, once they reach the legal age to actually be put into prison; then the court would decide on how they will sentence them based on the crime they committed at that specific age. In short, it is pretty much just postponing or delaying the time they have before they get into prison (for most cases). So let us say we push through with lowering the criminal liability to 10 - 12 years old, they would have to spend their time in rehabilitation centers for around 8 years of their life or possibly even more. While some may say that this is the perfect time to discipline them and that there are studies that show that this is “effective”, there are still downsides. Firstly, we don’t even know how these centers actually function. Will a 10 - 12 year old kid really survive in this kind of environment? Well I guess some would argue that for them to go in there in the first place then they might have a chance. However, I don’t think so – especially if the justification is that the 10 - 12 year old child would magically turn into the next “Pope” after going through these centers. Raising these children in an extremely strict facility where there are also potentially more individuals that could even further their interests in doing immoral acts would just be pointless. Are we also sure that certain age groups higher than 10 - 12 year olds will be segregated from them? This factor could also result in them getting bullied – while some may say that this is a deserving punishment and that it is only right – then once again, it completely defeats the purpose of the rehabilitation center since its goal is to quote on quote “change” or “improve” on the child. However, I am not going to completely dismiss the fact that there are effective intervention programs or rehabilitation centers. Although, how much of these are even actually present? Especially in the Philippines? In an article by Tomacruz (2019), it was mentioned that there aren’t enough rehabilitation centers to accommodate these children. So an even worse scenario pops out since this would result in them being put into actual jail. In the same article by Tomacruz (2019), it was stated that “more than 800 children were still in jails as of September 2018”.

While other countries may be lowering their age of criminal liability to 10 - 12 years old, it does not mean that the Philippines should be pushed into a corner where they should also lower the age of criminal liability. This is a good example of the “Ad Populum Fallacy”, it doesn’t necessarily mean if there is a certain trend or that the majority is doing a certain act, then it is automatically considered as something that is correct and that you should follow it. Each country has their own set of individuals and leaders, and that we are all unique from one another. If it works for another country, then it doesn’t mean it would also work for ours – and if I may add, we don’t really know either if it is actually effective or working for other countries that implemented this act.

My next point is that if this is being implemented in order to lower crime rates, then that either is not really going to affect or change the rates that much. In the first place, while I do think it is important to look into this matter – I wouldn’t really say that this is the “biggest issue” present right now in the country. I mean honestly, I’d rather just focus on giving these children proper education so that we could all prevent this situation from happening. In an article by Talabong (2019), it was quoted that “the children caught by cops violating the law are almost always from poor and vulnerable communities, a police official specializing in the treatment of children in conflict with the law (CICL) told Rappler in an interview on Tuesday, January 22”. The reason why it mostly originates from poverty is because they are put into a situation where they have to “do anything” in order to sustain themselves. Well, that “do anything” mindset was most probably instilled to them by their superiors. They were probably dictated and manipulated to do these acts to support themselves, but in reality these adults are just taking advantage of them and are just using them as someone to run their illegal errands. Whether it is to force them by stealing, by being a drug distributor, or just other inhumane and wrong acts.

To summarize my argument, as long as the parents/guardians are not doing their responsibility – or even furthermore, influencing them to do wrong acts for their own gain; then this issue will never fade. Lowering the minimum age of criminal liability is going to be extremely pointless as long as there are individuals who would take advantage of children to take care of the “dirty work” for them. Punishing the children through the law would not be the solution since they are still innocent and they are still learning on how to build their morals and values. Instead, their "punishments" should be taken more lightly (which doesn't involve the court) to an extent where they will realize that what they did was immoral and wrong. If this issue needs to be addressed, then the superiors/adults that are responsible for these children should be taken accountable. Education should also be heavily prioritized so that we could build a good environment for these children and that we can refrain from exposing them to immoral actions.

References:

Tomacruz, S. (2019). Why experts strongly oppose lowering the age of criminal liability. Rappler. https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/222628-reason-experts-strongly-opposing-lowering-minimum-age-criminal-responsibility/

Talabong, R. (2019). PNP official: Children violating laws ‘mostly from poor families’. Rappler. https://www.rappler.com/nation/221682-pnp-official-children-violating-laws-mostly-poor-families/

# data[].attributes.body
If I were to be the president of the country I would keep the age of criminal liability the same at 15 years old, and I'll further elaborate why.

There is barely any proof that children are to blame for the rise of crime rates in the Philippines. If ever the age of criminal liability would be lowered, the adult offenders would not care any less if they abuse children to commit crimes. I believe those children that are commiting crimes are lost and that they should not be penalized but be given help and guidance. Detaining children would not help them because as a child, would you want to be detained for every wrong action you’ve done? Of course not. Children just want to be loved, cared, and supported growing up. Instead of throwing kids in jail why not put them programs that would actually help them like strong parenting support programs, educational programs, and more.

There are a lot of factors contributing to why kids these days commit crimes. These factors may include poverty, domestic violence, and a lot more. We therefore have to put into consideration why they’ve committed these crimes and how we could help them since children’s brains are not yet fully developed, they might not know the consequences of their actions and why they do those things. If the age of criminal liability is lowered to 12 years old, it could scar a child's life forever for doing criminal activity due to the false influence of others. As mentioned earlier, instead of putting these kids in jail or juvenile detention, they should be placed in programs that would actually help them.

I believe that 15 years old is the right age since studies in neurobiology show that adolescents’ brain function reaches maturity only at around 16 years old. Therefore, at around the age of 15-16 years old, children should be mature enough to know the consequences of their actions.

# data[].attributes.body
If I were in a position of power as the President of the country, I would strongly choose to keep the age of responsibility at 15 years old. I believe that lowering it any further is inappropriate, while also seeing that there are valid reasons as to why it must stay the same.

Firstly, anyone under the age of 15 cannot and should not be held accountable for any criminal activity. I firmly maintain the opinion that people of this age do not know any better. Heck, they can be barely considered teenagers. It is widely known that the brain at that age is not fully developed. This kind of punishment can destroy someone's life this early. At this age, the parents must be held responsible. To quote UNICEF "12-year-olds aren't even teenagers, 9 year olds have barely even reached puberty. Exposing them to the grave punishment of the criminal justice system is serious wrongdoing"

However, I strongly suggest that we must not raise it either. I believe that in terms of serious, heinous crimes like murder or rape, 15-year-olds and above must be held accountable. Even if their brains haven't been fully developed, justice must be served. 15-year-olds have the mental capacity to decide right and wrong, and if they plan and/or commit something horrible like this, they are very much aware of the implications and subsequent punishment is required to protect society and the families of the victims. Again, this is only for cases like murder and the like. Juveniles must not be charged for petty crimes like theft or vandalism.

To conclude, the age of responsibility in the Philippines should stay the same. 9 - 12-year-olds are too young to be charged with criminal offenses, and may bring significant damage to their development. An intervention program is much more appropriate. However, it cannot be raised either, especially concerning heinous acts. A 15 year old is very much aware of the concept of serious felonies, and choosing to commit these should subject them to regular criminal charges.

# data[].attributes.body
As president, I must always keep in mind that the Philippines' governing system and the structure of its politics, economy, and society differ from those of other countries.

A simple thought experiment of lowering the criminal liability age further undermines its own aim. We must address these issues in a way that is compatible with our system and does not support a larger evil. Children under the age of 15 are used by criminal gangs because they cannot be held accountable for the crimes they commit.

The culture in which a child grows up has a significant impact on their lives. If kids grow up in a risky atmosphere where they are exposed to crime, vices, and bad individuals in general, it is quite possible that they will be impacted by their experiences in such a harmful setting that children should not be subjected to. When you detain young children, you are effectively classifying them as criminals, despite the fact that the majority of them are still unable to think for themselves. You encourage the notion that parents should not be held responsible for their children's irresponsible behavior.

Children should never have to bear the weight that irresponsible adults have placed on them. As a result, we must concentrate on improving the implementation of a better education system as well as public security. Children with criminal records are frequently victims of circumstance, as a result of poverty and the exploitation of adult criminals in their environment.

As a result, children who are exploited and forced to commit crimes because they have no other options should be safeguarded and given opportunities to reform and rehabilitate, rather than being condemned. While crime will always be an option, if we can present a more promising future, they will be more likely to select the path that appears to be safe and protected.

# data[].attributes.body
If I would be the president of the country, I would keep the age of criminal liability here in the Philippines to stay at the age of 15 or even raise it to 18 years old. I'll further eleborate on why.

I would keep the criminal liability to stay at the age of 15 is becuase children below the age of 15 are still considered as children. They are still seen as teenagers or pre-adolescents that doesn't have a fully developed mind as an adult. This means that children below the age of 15 should not be liable for the crimes that they have committed. I believe that childen below that age of 15 that commited a crime should not be penetalize and should not be punished by imprisonment.

There are a lot of factors that triggers children that commit crimes but for me there are 3 main facotrs that contributes children toe commit crimes. The first factor on why children commit crimes is becuase of their environment they live in. Children most likely will commit crimes if they live in an environment where they are surrounded by bad influences. Parents and guardians are the second factor that contributes to why children commit crimes. The influence of irresponsible parents, drug dealers, alcoholics and abusive parents can lead to children becoming irresponsible and doing crime in the future. Parents should set an example for their children and teach them what is right and what is wrong. They should be the ones who are chaning their children in becoming responsible childrens so that they wont end up commiting more crimes. The third factor is that children should acquire good morals and disepline in their life. This factor is related to the seocnd factor beacuse children should acquire good morals and dicipline from their parents. This factor triggers children into commiting crimes becuase they are not taught and aquire good discepline in their life. Due to this are the bad influences that they experience in their homes due to the environment they live in and irresponsible parents.

I believe that the childrens below that age of 15 should not be punished and liable from their crimes but it should be their parents that should be punished. Children who are below the age of 15 dosent have a fully developed mind which means that they dont know that is right from what is wrong and it is up to their parent who will teach them this. But if the parent are irresponsible and not disceplined, their children will grow up just like them.

To sum up, I believe that it is right as the president to still keep that criminal liablity at the age of 15 or even up to 18 year old becuase children that are below the age of 15 are still counted ad kids and teenagers. Their mind is not yet pre developed as like adults are.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, kids these days need to be disciplined in order to have a glimpse of what the real world can be.  As the president of the country,  The Age of Criminal Liability must still stay at 15 years of age

Growing up in very social and technological generation, having a brief background of discipline at a young age can help them in the future.  Not only that, children ages 10-12 still have alot to learn and are still really "kids".  In my opinion, it is not them that should be blame but the parents.

Most people will say that kids those age yes may commit crime but it is just because they are not properly disciplined by their parents. Kids also learn new things as they grow and a proper person can teach them the proper ways of being a disiplined individual.  Its the parents duty for the child to be disipline since they are the only ones who are close to their child.  It is also their responsibility to further teach the child about the laws of the country and to do and what not to do.

Law is a binded contract to all people and all of them must follow.  It is the duty of the parents to take accountability of the children under the age of 15 since they are still in the developing stage of their brain.

# data[].attributes.body
As the president of the country, I say that the minimum age of imprisonment for juvenile delinquency must stay at 15 or even be raised to 18 years of age.

Law is defined as the system of rules created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behaviour. Although the words crime and punishment go hand in hand, in some situations moral and ethical standards are constantly challenged, seeing as crime does not always equal punishment and vice versa. Failure and success of society are heavily based upon the actions of its participants, and that in itself can be a reason as to why juvenile punishment can be detrimental.

There are a plethora of reasons as to why incriminated minors do such acts. Parental behaviour, social practice, and environment are the most commonly notable factors to structure a person's development. Based on Piaget’s four stages of development the ages of 7-11 show signs of logical and concrete reasoning, this is why possible imprisonment can be so detrimental at this stage. A child’s cognitive ability at this age typically only starts to explore logical and social signals to further develop and understand cognitive assets.

To be punished by law one must fit a certain criteria being that the situation must involve an evil, must be for an offence, and must be of an offender. Now this is where a minor's cognitive ability shall be taken into consideration. Is it truly a crime if the offender fails to understand the nature and evil of their offence?

So to truly implement justice only individuals of full cognitive capability and reasonable understanding will be in power to decide, and this is an aspect in which law and ethics collide. Which in turn creates the paradox of asking if a society is better off to dispose of law and live ethically or to keep order but sacrifice morals. With the choice being mainly logical in nature being that the knowledge of morals influence the need of order and the need of order preserve peaceful yet ethical lifestyles.

The ideologies go hand in hand, that in turn answers why my choice of keeping the minimum age of imprisonment at 15 or 18 need not to be further discussed. It is not a question of justice but a question of logic, as to preserve a human's potential development and rehabilitation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Maintain Age of Criminal Liability at 15 Years of Age - Castro, Ryan

# data[].attributes.subject
Maintain Age of Criminal Liability at 15 Years of Age - Castro, Ryan

# data[].attributes.body
The age of criminal liability must remain at 15 years of age, if not elevated to 16 years of age. In the following paragraphs, I will further discuss my reasoning; however, before I begin, I would like to state and emphasize that (1) I respect all valid opinions concerning issues like this, (2) it is a fact that children’s brains fully develop at the age of 16, including the ability to discern the consequences of their actions, and thus, they should not be held accountable for their actions until this age is reached, and (3) I humbly and respectfully would like to say that if you agree that the criminal liability age should be lowered, even more, I solemnly pray for your enlightenment.

Now, to get into my reasoning, firstly, it is morally wrong to hold children accountable for their criminal actions as their cognitive ability is not well developed enough for complete rational decision-making. This argument cannot be merely considered fallacious as an “appeal to pity” as it is backed by science. The human brain matures only at the age of 16, meaning that children under 16 may still have developing reasoning skills and impulse control leading their actions to be caused not only due to their conscious choices but also due to their cognitive limitations dictated by their body growth which they cannot control. According to the Philippine Pediatric Society, “Discernment between right and wrong requires intellectual, emotional, and psychological maturity.” Therefore, the law should protect children from being held accountable for their actions as they have not yet biologically reached this stage of maturity and are still cognitively developing. It should be the law’s responsibility to protect children who cannot completely protect themselves.

Secondly, in connection with the first point, many crimes by children are committed due to the influence and result of their circumstances. As children do not have fully developed minds, they are more prone to coercion from adults and influence from peers. Often, when a child commits a crime, it is done from impulse, under the influence of an adult, or under the pressure of their peers. At this stage in life, children are very much vulnerable to outside influences. An example of this would be gangs who use children as scapegoats or even employ them as drug pushers. Given that their reasoning and impulse control are not fully developed at this stage, they should not be held accountable for giving into outside influences and coercion. A majority of these children are coerced due to their circumstances, one example being children born into poverty who are asked by their parents to steal or children who are already born and involved with criminal webs that they cannot escape. A majority of crimes committed by children are committed by children in poverty anyways, so this alone should be a factor given bigger attention to. There even exist many syndicates and groups that use children to commit illegal acts. As said earlier, children still have yet to reach emotional and intellectual maturity, and as such, are more prone to being manipulated by others. In a sense, it is also a breach of the children’s human rights to a healthy and safe environment and protection from economic exploitation. It is the state’s responsibility to ensure that the children grow in safe environments. Rather than arresting children who have committed crimes, they should instead investigate the environmental conditions that the child is growing in in order to execute the best course of action such as legally placing the child in the custody of someone more fit to raise the child should their parents be found to be criminals as well. It is very important that the state gives children a positive learning environment to grow to be responsible citizens of the nation.

Lastly, it is a fact that prisons and correctional facilities are not known for having the most humane treatment of their inmates. Some children are incarcerated in regular adult prisons with regular adult inmates. Some, if not most prisons in the Philippines are not kept in the best conditions, leading to rusted rooms, leaking ceilings, and poor ventilation, that affects the prisoners. It was even found that many prisoners have developed skin infections due to poor diet and sanitation. A number of prisons in the country are extremely poorly maintained, affecting the health of their inmates. Sentencing a child to such poorly handled facilities that could harm or endanger them is not the correct answer at all. It is also possible that they are even exposed to criminal networks through these prisons, making it much more dangerous for them in the future as adults, as their safety could be threatened just by having had contact with involved criminals. They are also even more prone to manipulation by other criminals being held as inmates with them. Well, you may ask, what about rehabilitation centers? Sorry to tell you, but many rehabilitation centers are also like the prisons in the aspect that they are also poorly maintained. Aside from this, there are also too few rehabilitation centers for youth. This is actually the reason why there are still so many children being detained in prisons with adults. In conclusion, the children themselves should not be punished with incarcerated in these poorly managed facilities. Actually, they should not be punished at all. As mentioned above, children cannot fully comprehend their actions and reason at their age, and thus, should not be incarcerated.

Some may argue that the crimes that some children commit are of extreme gravity, and should not be condoned at all, being deserving of more extreme methods of punishment. However, I believe that despite such grave actions being committed by children, this cannot be completely blamed on them. It is the lack of sensible adults capable of educating these children that needs to be addressed instead. Children are born without a sense of morality and law, and it is their external influences and upbringing that shape their sense of right and wrong. Therefore, such grave crimes committed by children should not be put solely on them. This is supported by the fact that children cannot completely comprehend the gravity of their actions at such a young age as mentioned above. Others may argue that not incarcerating these criminally-inclined children could lead to them repeating their actions and continuing to commit more crimes. While this is a valid point in solely judging the children and their potential continued impact to society, I believe that it is then the public health system that needs to be looked at and reformed for allowing these children to be raised this way. Either way, once they reach the age of criminal liability, if they still are persistent with their criminal offenses, then of course they will be incarcerated and given the appropriate sentence.

The trends in juvenile delinquency should not be blamed on children whose brains are not fully developed to understand the consequences of their actions, children who did not undergo a good upbringing from a caring family, and children who did not receive proper education. Instead of punishing all children in the name of problems that do not entirely fall on their shoulders alone, the government should focus on fixing the living conditions and familial situations that lead to this increase in juvenile criminal activity. Improving the youth homes, prisons and rehabilitation facilities must also be given more effort. Many children living in unsafe households or families can be given new homes in more well-managed and improved homes for youth. Fault can never be fully placed on children as parents and guardians are also accountable for their actions, and therefore it should be looked at elsewhere to determine what actions must be taken instead of lowering the age of criminal liability even more.

# data[].attributes.body
As the president of my country, I believe that lowering it to 10-12 years of age is the most appropriate choice. If I were president, solving each problem my country would experience as quickly and efficiently would be the most optimal choice and therefore making sure these kids do not repeat these actions is the most beneficial choice for both them and the public. If we continue to let these feelings of mischief, greed, jealousy, revenge, anger, or pride take hold over these youngsters’ lives, they will surely end up in bad shape, or even worse, dead.

Most people depend use the “appeal to pity” fallacy, which is using pity as a reason for an argument. And in this case, they think one’s youth should make them free of any penalties. This reminds me of a police department with low police integrity, just allowing people who have done wrong to walk free, which makes only two possibilities for them. The first is that they change as a person and choose not to commit these wrongful actions, and the latter is them continuing to involve a crime in their lives which obviously affects themselves and others.

Let's consider alternative perspectives with a Socratic question. What will become of a world without order? Imagine an alternate reality where everyone escaped the clutches of justice, just roaming free knowing they received zero jail time for either stealing, raping, or even killing. Robbing others will dominate jobs, human rights constantly being thrown out of the window, serial killings will become more prevalent and eventually become the norm which in turn decreases populations faster than the black plague itself. Is this the world you want?

I know this might sound extreme when dealing with juveniles/adolescents, but I believe these details should be what everyone thinks about when thinking about changing criminal liability. Younger people these days need to realize that discipline is inescapable, either receiving it from their parents or the authorities, and as they depend on their country’s laws regarding criminal liability as their “get out of jail free card”, the more crimes they will do at that certain age, and at the point, they mature into adults, they won’t even care anymore about getting caught. Now THAT is where it gets dangerous.

Now I agree, that some forms of discipline are too harsh for some kids who have just done minor offenses (ex. parents forcing their children to ingest cleaning detergent for cursing, which doesn’t even make sense because they are taking the idiom, “a foul mouth” literally). That’s why, as a president of my country whose job is to take care of the many things, such as people, is to make sure that these offenders will receive what my officers in the juvenile detention centers consider is appropriate. There are cases of guards abusing their power over people who physically cannot defend themselves from full-grown adults, which is why I will ensure that the guards will avoid abusing their power, and guarantee the safety of the youthful offenders.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the age of criminal liability here in the Philippines should stay at 15, perhaps even raise it to 16 or 18, and I believe that there is a myriad of reasons as to why so.

Firstly, a 12-year-old, let alone a 10-year-old, are barely even a teenager- they should still be seen as children. They are early adolescents that just came out of childhood. There have been studies regarding the cognitive development of children this age (which I will link at the bottom of this post), and they state that they are still at a developmental stage; they simply have not matured enough, hence being more susceptible to pressure by the adults around them and their peers. Them being more susceptible to pressure could lead to people with bad intentions (like gangs and syndicates) exploiting them, even more so because they can’t be liable. A lower age of criminal responsibility will not stop bad people from using children for their bad agendas; instead, it will move the accountability from the adults to the children.

There is barely any data that children actually have an effect on the crime rate in the Philippines. If the age of criminal responsibility is lowered, then those people would exploit younger children accordingly. It should be the adults taking responsibility for being terrible influences instead of the children– the children were just influenced by the circumstances they’re in. They most likely were not raised in a good environment.

I am not denying that children can do wrong and unlawful things, and that they should learn to take accountability. But teaching them to take accountability should be within the house or school. It is the parent, guardian, or teacher’s job to teach that things have consequences they have to face, and that there are rules that they have to abide by. However, things like crime should not be something a child should learn these things from. Criminal records could be life-ruining, and it could rid someone of employment and educational opportunities in the future. 12-year-olds should not have to face the harshness of the justice system– again, it should be the adults that influenced them that should be atoning. But instead of detaining them and imprisoning them, why not provide rehabilitation and keep them in an environment that will not pressure them into doing anything wrong. This will touch the nurture part of brain development and will prevent them from doing crimes again.

I believe that the age should be raised to at least 16 years old. Cognitive Neuroscience says that 16-year-olds have the same cognitive abilities as adults do, but they aren’t particularly matured yet- they will reach this maturity in their 20s.

Someone’s life shouldn’t have to get ruined because of something they’ve done at 12 years old and because of irresponsible adults.

Blakemore, S. J., & Choudhury, S. (2006). Development of the adolescent brain: implications for executive function and social cognition. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 47(3‐4), 296-312.

Steinberg, L. (2017). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. In Biosocial Theories of Crime (pp. 435-463). Routledge.

# data[].attributes.body
If I were the president of the country, I would lower punishments to breaking the law to 10-12 years old. Some kids this age murder people and get away with it because they are young. Killing someone can’t be gotten away from by kids because it should be obvious doing this is wrong even to 10 year olds and even younger than that. However there should be crimes that only punishments like fine or verbal punishment should be given. These would be stealing, damage of private property, etc. These are things not involved with murder and inhumane acts. If we let kids get away with inhumane acts just because they are kids, they will grow up to be even worst doing nothing good for the community. Juvenile for young murderers can set them to a straighter path in life. This can break the bad habits they have, this can be a discipline for them. We should keep in mind although that some crimes are not that heavy, and not too easy to understand for children ages 15 and below, especially considering that fact that some kids aren’t guided well in life. Some kids may think it is okay to steal due to hunger, and need of basic needs, and that is something that shouldn’t be a reason for kids being in juvenile. Yes they committed a crime but life isn’t fair to these kids.  So this is the reason why there should be balance depending on the weight of the crime committed by the child.