John MacDonald: Should we keep treating 10-year-olds as criminals?

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

If someone is 10 years old, they aren't legally allowed to smoke. They aren’t legally allowed to drink alcohol, and they’re not really allowed to have their own Facebook page, but they can be held criminally responsible for violent crimes such as murder or manslaughter.

And the new Chief Children’s Commissioner, Dr Claire Achmad, says that’s crazy and wants the minimum age of criminal responsibility to be raised from 10 to 14.

And my head agrees with her, but my heart doesn’t.

So the Children's Commissioner is saying today that, when a child commits a crime, it means they are struggling and they should be helped —not punished— and she wants to see changes in how we deal with these kids.

A surprising thing is the Prime Minister’s response to this call for change, but I’ll get to that.

It’s not as if the Chief Children’s commissioner is a lone voice in all of this. Last year, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child said New Zealand should raise the age of criminality to 14.

It said that our approach focuses too much on the offence and not the fact that these offenders are young kids and, because they’re kids, they should be treated differently.

The year before that —in 2022— the then children’s commissioner called for the age to be lifted to, at least, 14, but preferably 15 or 16.

So this has been building momentum.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith doesn’t appear to be in favour of any change - saying that special provisions are made for criminal kids. The Prime Minister's door seems to be slightly ajar, not completely closed, to the idea.

He said yesterday that the Government would need to have “a proper consideration; a proper discussion” before making any moves to change the minimum age.

He went on to say: “We have real challenges in serious youth offending. Again, it comes down to quite a relatively small group, but certainly the age of some of those young offenders have got younger and younger over time.”

And he said while raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility isn't a priority right now, “we’re open for doing whatever it takes, and we’re open for considering lots of new, bold, brave ideas”.

Maybe the “bold and brave” part of that would be taking on the risk of a public backlash. Because there’s no shortage of people who think, whatever someone’s age, they should face the full consequences of their actions.

And I know that, if one of these ratbags we’re talking about was to commit a serious crime that affected me, I’d want the book thrown at them.

Maybe I’m underestimating myself there. And this is what I’m getting at when I say my heart tells me that the age of criminality shouldn’t be raised from 10 to 14.

Whereas my head tells me that what the Chief Children’s Commissioner is saying today makes perfect sense.

Why would you take something like the old ‘lock ‘em up and throw away the key’ approach when you’re dealing with someone so young and someone, you would like to think, has a greater chance of being rehabilitated and changing their ways than someone older?

In my head, it makes perfect sense not to lump 10-year-olds in with older crims and treat them the same.

That’s what the Chief Children’s Commissioner is saying today, and she says there’s evidence to prove that we’re doing things wrong.

Dr Achmad says it’s out-of-step with what science tells us about brain development in young people and it’s out-of-step with New Zealand’s international obligations and duties under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

She says: “When a child criminally offends, it means that they are struggling; that their needs aren’t being met in one or more ways.”

She says we can still hold these kids to account without punishing them.

As I say, I’m torn. Because what she’s saying makes sense. But, in my heart of hearts, I can’t agree with what she’s calling for.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.