So of course I was upset about the release from Mr. Toews about the possibility of lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 10. However I think I'm even more irked by an article written by Colby Cosh for the National Post.
In it he argues that England lowered their age to 10 after the James Bulger case so Canada should too. What he misunderstands is that the case of James Bulger is an extreme case and as such should be treated on an individual basis. Most 10 year olds do not set out to murder other people nor do they set out to steal, rob or assault other people. What the author also fails to realize is how this kind of tragedy does happen. Furthermore, he fails to realize that the European Court of Human Rights recognized that the trial was unfair.
Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were two very disturbed young 10 year olds who have since being found guilty and received some of the best treatment that English funds can provide. They were taken away from their families and placed in secure treatment facilities where they were subjected to dealing with their issues. What the world did was turn these boys into monsters. Sure their act was monstrous. What they did to James Bulger is inexcusable and despicable yet at the time of their age an alternative solution should have been sought. They did receive treatment instead of incarceration; I'm just not sure they should have stood trial for their crimes. If anything they should have just been placed directly in treatment and the age of responsibility in the UK should have remained at 12.
That's just the small thing that bothered me about the article. The James Bulger case was extreme and shouldn't be used as an argument that 10 year olds are capable of a vicious crime. The big thing that bothered me about the article was the following statement:
In fact, as Toews made clear in a follow-up letter to newspapers yesterday,
he was motivated by the liberal tendency to regard the state as a substitute
parent, not by the conservative instinct to punish.
Now he wants to take kids away from their parents because the liberal idea is to rehabilitate and not incarcerate? I'm not arguing that the liberal policy has been to use the state as a substitute parent. What I am concerned about though is continuing down the path that puts the state in charge of parenting. There are some really crappy parents out there that should have their children taken away from them. The ones who abuse their child physically, sexually, emotionally, and are extemely neglectful should have their rights as parents taken away from them. However there are some very loving parents out there who would love to have the skills and resources to raise their child(ren) yet because they are deemed undesirable don't get the help they require. Because they lack the skills or resources they are sometimes deemed incapable of parenting and have their child taken away.
What the government needs to do in the next couple of years is communicate between all the ministries--both provincially and federally--to discuss how better to serve children and families. This needs to occur if they truly want to have crime prevention so that "10 year old" criminals are only kept to the extreme ends of the scale and not a regular occurrence.
The article in question is this http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=56990d41-5502-4b25-8fa6-6855258c2e95&k=97318&p=1
No comments:
Post a Comment