Age of discernment?

There is a proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility from fifteen to twelve years old.  This proposal, known as Senate Bill 2026, is filed by no less than the present Senate President, Vicente Sotto III. This idea arose from the increasing cases of misdemeanors committed by minors. The move is set on the idea that lowering the age of criminal responsibility will deter minors from committing a crime.  The question is will it really solve the problem?

I will leave it to the experts who have the means to use and/or do extensive research on the various aspects – professionals who are more qualified  to argue for or against. Neither do I have the expertise nor the time to do an extensive one.  Yet, I do have, at this time, an opinion regarding the matter based on gut feeling and my, hitherto, sense of logic.

My position is that the issue at hand is the same as the age-old debate on capital punishment.  Will the re-imposition of capital punishment, for heinous crimes, at least, be a deterrent to committing a crime? My answer is in the negative. I believe that a person who commits a crime, especially heinous ones, never considers the result of his/her wrongful act.  A crime is committed willfully and without regard to whatever consequence shall befall the offender for such is committed only with the selfish purpose, whatever that may be, the offender has. I have yet to see a rapist, for example, stop his craving for sex simply because he knows that the punishment, if caught and proven guilty, is death.  No, his or her evil intentions should be fulfilled regardless of what the outcome of such a dastardly act shall be. The same thing is true with a criminal who will kill someone just so his purpose is served. More importantly, capital punishment is anti-poor.  Rich offenders can pay their way to freedom no matter what crime has been committed.  Only poor people who cannot defend themselves are incarcerated. Secondly, capital punishment is final. There is no more hope of reformation – the true idea behind putting an offender in jail. It is merely a vengeance to make the victim or the relatives feel good.

By the same token, lowering the age of criminal liability will not solve the current situation of minors committing a crime.  The issue is even more complex than we think it is.  Criminal responsibility is set because we believe that it is the age when a person has reached fully the age of discernment -meaning that said person has truly grasped the difference between right and wrong. What this age is is still unknown. There has been no standard and each country has set its own. This fact is simply because no study has been made that has proven what such an age actually is. Psychologists will argue endlessly the point and will never come up with a solid, acceptable answer.  Think about it! We incarcerate people who have done something wrong in the hope that they can be reformed.  That does not usually happen. On the contrary, people who are taken to jail even become callous and numb and more likely to be hardened by the experience. If such is the case with mature adults, this will be doubled in the case of minors who are more susceptible to his/her surroundings. Put a minor in jail and chances are he/she is more likely to become a grievous offender in the future. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC) policy and research officer Jackielou Bagadiong says, To put children in jail would be like putting them in “school(s) of crime. She elaborates by saying,  If a child enters jail, one can be assured that when he or she comes out, she will have had a network of criminals that can assist him or her later on. 

One of the arguments given by those in favor of the bill is that lowering criminal responsibility will put an end to syndicates using children do their work for them. The problem with this argument is that the real offenders are the syndicates, not the children. Why should the children be punished when they are just being used unwittingly to commit a felony? Why not go after the real culprits and punish these usurpers of innocent children? Lowering the age will not deter the syndicates from using children for they do not care what happens to their pawns. What is worse is what will stop them from using even younger kids? When they do, we are not just back to square one but we will find ourselves in a deeper hell hole than we already are.

It is true that the government should look at ways for its people to have peaceful, contented lives. According to Thomas Hobbes, a government’s main function is to protect and provide. A government should ensure the safety and protection of its people from each other and from foreign foes. To do this, government as protector requires taxes to fund, train and equip an army and a police force; to build courts and jails; and to elect or appoint the officials to pass and implement the laws citizens must not break. It is very clear that government should protect its citizens.  This being the case, the government has the responsibility to take care of its minors.  It has to ensure that the minors receive total protection and assurance that they shall all be taken care of.  To do this, it is the duty of the government to strengthen the family as a very important unit. In the absence of such for an unfortunate child, the government should assign one for the child to ensure that he/she grows up a responsible, conscientious adult. Thus, the government should make laws to make sure that parents take full responsibility of their children as they should.  Keep them off the streets, nurture, educate and love them for they were the ones who brought their children to the world.  Education is the key.  If these children are given adequate, quality education, they would have sufficient knowledge to get by rather than fighting for their very existence in the streets.  Lowering crime responsibility is not the right response to the problem. It is merely a short cut for law makers.  What we should do is strengthen the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, the very law that addresses the problem of erring juveniles. Bagadiong states that with the JJWC, the child still has this liability … it would harm our future generation if we do that. I totally agree.