Given the different velocities at which people may develop both physically and intellectually. any signifier of expressed age bound may be arbitrary and irrational. Children do non merit to be exposed to condemnable penalty in the same manner as grownups. Childs have non had experience of life. nor do they have the same mental and rational capacities as grownups. Persons aged 15 to 19 old ages are more likely to be processed by constabulary for the committee of a offense than are members of any other population group. In mention to the instance with the 6 yr. old hiting his schoolmate. I believe he should hold some kind of penalty. The immature male child had a scuffle the twenty-four hours before and went place and because of his environment and upbringing he knew that a gun was unsafe and can do injury to another individual. The immature male child at some point had to believe about his actions and decided to take the arm to school and subsequently. hiting the immature schoolmate which means the immature 6 yr. old practiced on drawing the trigger. Certain. you have an artlessness factor here and each province sets the age bound on what age to bear down a kid with a condemnable act.
Age and condemnable duty is a truly huffy subject for many any kids under the age of 7 and in the United States the condemnable justness system can bear down a young person with a condemnable offense at the age of 6 old ages of age. I know of two instances where six twelvemonth old male childs were convicted on condemnable charges in the province of California. I believe that the 6 yr. old in the class readings should’ve been tribunal ordered to undergo professional guidance or intervention. If a penalty was non something the province wanted to publish. I decidedly would reason that the young person was exposed to a family where guns and drugs were prevailing and the young person himself in my sentiment may hold suffered from some kind of PTSD. The schoolmate that was shot has a household and that household needs justness. Justice would non be served if the six twelvemonth old walks off free. Charging the 19 yr. old in the house with guns and drugs does non work out the offense that took topographic point at the school. There is an age bound for holing a kid accountable for condemnable duty and in this instance. the young person should’ve been charged. The young person should’ve undergone a session to find if he was mentally cognizant and so the province should’ve charged the immature male child.