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.

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

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/

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

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.

 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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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