Everything Ulster - Latest comments on Manipulation of "Rights" Lets Criminals Off The Hook

Mike [Visitor] in response to: Manipulation of "Rights" Lets Criminals Off The Hook

Mike [Visitor] — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:10:47 +0000

I remember a case a few years back in Belfast where a five year old broke into and flooded a neighbours house and damn all could be done about it because the child was under 10 (even though it was obvious that the childs parents had put them up to it).

Drug dealers sometimes use children to sell their products for this very same reason.

What is needed is to make parents of all kids 0-18 jointly responsible (In both civil AND criminal law) for the actions of their feral spawn. With Judges could decide in each case what percentage of responsibity atached to the parents v's the child with the general principle that as the child gets older more of the responsibility falls on him/her.

If such a law was introduced one just might find parents starting to take an interest in where their little brats are at night

Seamus [Member] in response to: Manipulation of "Rights" Lets Criminals Off The Hook

Seamus [Member] — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:06:32 +0000

Considering the sort of scum that run the streets today, the idea of handling hoods, druggies and murderers with kid gloves just because the happen to be under 18 appalls me. The two hallians that murdered wee Jamie Bulger would get off if the Bill of Rights goes through. The scumbag that murdered Megan McAlorum would get off because he was under 18. This Bill of Rights is sending the wrong message to young bastards running the streets that no matter what the hell they do, it's alright, there only kids. So, if they pass this Bill of Rights, the first time a sixteen year old knifes some one, we should hold the entire Bill of Rights lobby criminally responsible.

beano [Member] in response to: Manipulation of "Rights" Lets Criminals Off The Hook

beano [Member] — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:44:35 +0000

You're right Ciaran they do mention the 14-16 comment, I obviously missed that bit and have amended the post.

I wouldn't advocate too vague a statement of rights because you're right, that does leave things much too open to interpretation. Sadly "a manner that is sensitive to their youth" is exactly the sort of statement that could lead to a lot of problems on that front.

I accept that there's an argument that 10 is too young, but I can't see any argument for raising the age above 14. A toddler often knows when he's doing something 'wrong', even if he doesn't understand why it's wrong (i.e. that the reason he gets smacked for putting his fingers near the plug sockets is because he'll get electrocuted). Likewise a teenager may not fully comprehend why sectarian abuse or violence is so poisonous to society, but he still knows that what he's doing is wrong. The answer may be more 'citizenship' type education or something else, but making excuses isn't it.

Ciarán [Visitor] in response to: Manipulation of "Rights" Lets Criminals Off The Hook

Ciarán [Visitor] — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:43:00 +0000

What the BORF aren't so quick to talk about is that they (the UN) view ages between 14-16 as "high"

Did you get bored reading the document Beano?! They mention this fact on page 34 of the report. Moreover, they don't propose an end to incarceration of children, and nor do they propose an end to punishment. Rather, they argue that holding children responsible ought to be done in a manner that is sensitive to their youth. What's the matter with that? Do you really believe that there's a social benefit to locking 16 year olds up as criminals with adults, never mind 11 year olds? They'll come out as reformed characters will they?

What the forum is proposing is a regime similar to that in - shock horror - Scotland. So we're not looking at some sort of radical 'do-gooder' manifesto here.

I more or less agree that a brief bill of rights is better than a long one, but I think your mistaken in thinking that there's inherently political consequences and motives involved in naming specific rights and none with the short bills. First, vague laws probably lead to more political entrepreneur behavior, not less (as the American rights culture proves). Second, there are many many many bills of rights around the world and America's is the shortest. AFAIK South Africa's mammoth effort is the longest (and strangely, the US, not SA, is the place you think of when you think of it's-my-right-ery). It's likely that NI will end up somewhere in between.