Index Nature and scope of the age of responsibility Overview of stakeholder views Sharing legal alternatives Recommendation Conclusion The minimum age of criminal responsibility in Australia is set at age 10 , being one of the lowest MACRs in the world, spanning all jurisdictions including Queensland, NSW and South Australia. This means that the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR) is the age at which a 10-year-old child is considered criminally responsible for challenging a crime in a specific jurisdiction, despite intent, recklessness or negligence based on act or omission. But MACR in Australia is becoming increasingly evident in political and public circles, as the current age of criminal responsibility is unacceptably low. In this report I will explore the current circumstances following the MACR Bill in raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility and issues regarding interactional comparisons, child protection rights, the limited capacity of the common law doctrine of incapacity of subsidy to protect young children, child development issues and problems related to mental illness and cognitive impairment, criminological dilemmas relating to the failure of a criminalization approach, the views of stakeholders and the fact that the bill MACR has exposed young people to the criminal justice system, leaving a significant impact on their neurological problems and social development, which has been shown to result in long-lasting interactions with the justice system, demonstrating that MACR in Australia should be raised to 14 years. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Nature and Scope of Age of Responsibility An estimated 5,513 youth ages 10 and older were in juvenile justice on average -18, and 10,638 ages 10 to 17 were under supervision temporarily during the year. This equates to 21 in 10,000 or 1 in 486 young people on a daily basis, but why? Children involved in the criminal justice system often come from disadvantaged backgrounds and have complex needs based on research for the Comparative Youth Penalty Project, which shows that young people in the juvenile justice sector have multiple and complex needs, including community backgrounds of deep-rooted socio-economic disadvantage and being exposed to fragmented educational experiences marked by periods of exclusion and expulsion, which result in poor educational outcomes. Research shows that children who commit crimes are subject to poor living conditions, including homelessness and/or out-of-home care (OOHC) placements, and have experienced child abuse, neglect, disability, mental illness, drug abuse and alcohol, exposure to crime and violence and unresolved trauma issues for which the current MACR bill does not address the legal, medical, social standards, evidence and research, which come together in a strong consensus that children of this age should not be criminalized, further victimizing disadvantaged children. Data shows that in 2009 a prisoner health survey in New South Wales found that around half of participants had not finished year 10, one in 10 (11%) were living in unstable accommodation or had no permanent home prior to current incarceration and approximately 30% noted they had housing problems in the six months prior to incarceration, 50% of men and 67% of women were unemployed in the six months prior to incarceration, with 30% of men and 44% of women unemployed for five years or more, 22% ofnon-Aboriginal male prisoners and 27% of non-Aboriginal female prisoners, and 46% of Aboriginal male prisoners and 45% of Aboriginal female prisoners, had been placed in home care as children, and approximately one in five prisoners ((18% of men and 17% of women) have had a parent in prison. This strongly suggests that there is a strong correlation between child and youth offending and entrenched disadvantage. including speech, language, communication disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorders, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), and acquired traumatic brain injury Detained First Nations children have hearing and speech problems that go undiagnosed, and their behavior is misinterpreted as noncompliance, rudeness, defiance, or indifference. The link between cognitive disability and associated impairments and vulnerability to the juvenile criminal justice system was highlighted in a prevalence study of children at Banksia Hill Detention Center in Western Australia, conducted by the Telethon Kids Institute. There were unprecedented levels of severe neurodevelopmental harm among convicted youth, the study found. There was also evidence that 89% of children suffered from at least one form of severe neurodevelopmental impairment, as well as 67% from three forms and 23% from five or more. FASD accounted for 36% of cases and brain disability accounted for 25%. Bower, Watkins & Mutch (2018) of 99 children detained in Western Australia found that 89% had at least one severe neurodevelopmental disorder. Impairments included fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), intellectual disability, attention deficit disorder (ADD), anxiety, speech and language disorder (SLD), trauma and attachment disorder (TAD), and developmental delay. In Western Australia, the Children and Young People's Commissioner has praised cognitive disability and associated disorders as drivers of children's involvement in the juvenile criminal justice system. Overview of stakeholder views As a national law representative body, the Law Council of Australia represents the interests of the legal profession, advises its constituent bodies on national matters and works to improve access to justice, administration of justice and the general quality of the law. Furthermore, they recognize that poor health has been associated with contact with the criminal justice system, and therefore believe that Australia's current MACR is harmful and unacceptable. In accordance with the Australian Law Council's recommendation, the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be increased to at least 14 years. Countless factors are evaluated by Legal Counsel in achieving this cessation, including community safety, criminogenic effects, development considerations, the disproportionate impact of the current age of criminal responsibility on vulnerable populations, international human rights standards, limits of doli, incapax, alternative ways to deal with criminal justice and the need for additional crimes. It also does not take into account the socioeconomic determinants that lead some groups, such as First Nations children, children in out-of-home care, and children with significant health problems, to be disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. As a result of this evidence, the Law Council believes that the best interests of the child and the public are morealigned with what is generally recognized. The United Nations is an intergovernmental organization whose mission is to promote international peace and stability, foster cordial relations among nations, achieve international cooperation, and serve as a conduit for harmonizing the actions of nations. There are 193 UN member states, 122 have proposed 250 recommendations and 31 implore Australia to increase the MACR during a UN Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review process in January. The United Nations encourages Australia to elevate the MACR to develop and implement a comprehensive juvenile justice policy that prohibits and encourages the eradication of juvenile delinquency, based on the guidance and assistance of the Inter-Agency Group on Juvenile Justice, which convenes representatives of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), United Nations Office against drugs and crime (UNODC) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and pay particular attention to the mitigation of juvenile delinquency, the integration of alternative measures that enable responses to juvenile delinquency without capitulating to judicial procedures, and the interpretation and implementation of all other provisions and to promote the amalgamation, into a national and global policy on juvenile justice, of other international standards, in particular the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, into a national and global policy global juvenile justice framework. Sharing legal alternatives There is a better prospect for correcting increasingly violent behavior with early intervention and rehabilitation in relation to adolescents than adult offenders regarding repercussions; for example, the Australian Childhood Foundation (ACF) could pursue a legal alternative regarding sanctions for children for criminal offences. ACF is a highly reputable facilitator providing statewide therapeutic interventions serving children and youth in the juvenile justice system suffering from cognitive impairment, mental illness, or trauma. Outside the juvenile justice system, a comprehensive therapeutic and support methodology for individuals and healthcare professionals urgently aims to assist people by providing protection rather than further harm to those who need it. Different modules are currently available in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. The Center of Excellence in Therapeutic Care, a state-level intermediary to assist in residential care reform, was established. This form consequently helps prevent further criminal acts and a better understanding of what is right and wrong towards children. A second legal alternative is to increase the MACR to the appropriate age of 14. Various arguments for increasing the MACR from age 10 have been put forward based on three arguments: its inherent irrationality, its injustice in practice, and its outdated idea that a child under 14 can discern right from wrong , which leads to harshness of criminal punishment. It appears that diversion from custody and the juvenile justice system will be more suitable for most children and young people, thus improving community safety. If the penal age is increased, the court's consideration of doli incapax arguments will be eliminated. Additionally, the legislation will bring Australian law into line with the obligations.