Do the crime, do the time.

At what age is a child no longer a child? Some say 16, some say 18. The fact that the boundaries are so blurred and subjective, leaves the law in a very difficult position. 

If you are 16 or younger and you are arrested, you are entitled to a responsible adult. After this point however, you are not allowed a parent with you and thus at 17, it begs the question whether you are old enough to know what's best or understand what is going on. 

Based on previous posts, you will realise by now I have fixed opinions about the law and judicial system and thus it will come as no surprise that I was pretty disgusted to hear about parents pleading for 17-year-olds to be treated as children in the eyes of the law. I'm sorry, but if you're old enough to commit the crime, you're old enough to do the time. 

This particular case came about after 17-year-old Joe Lawton committed suicide last summer after he was arrested for drink-driving. The parents believe the fact he was arrested and had no support affected his mental state and that they should have been able to support him whilst he was in custody. Don't get me wrong, this is an awfully tragic situation and my sympathies do go out to his family, but at the end of the day, he broke the law. It was not the fact that he didn't have any support during the interview process that cut his life short. Despite not being old enough to drink, Joe saw himself as old enough to consume alcohol, and he was old enough to be in charge of a vehicle. There should be no further questions needed. He stupidly broke the law, and he's more than old enough to deal with what he's done. 

The parents claim he was 'frightened to death' which is probably true but I'm pretty sure the victim he could have killed would have been scared to death as would their family and friends...

75,000 17-year-olds are held in custody every year and although Joe's crime may have been stupid and irresponsible, he didn't harm anyone but himself, and it's not the worst crime committed by a 17-year-old. If we had made the exception for one boy, what would happen if we made an exception for the 75,000 others? Do they deserve rights, in light of atrocities such as murder or rape? 

Age is just a number. If in a different situation, a 17-year-old was being discriminated against for being too young, all Hell would break loose. There's just no pleasing people. Even if the offender is a child based on his numerical age, if they have the mentality to commit crime with intent, then they are an adult morally and old enough to take responsibility. 

Leading the campaign is a charity Just for Kids Law. The fact this charity even exists worries me; how some people sleep at night is beyond me. They believe everybody under the age of 18 should be treated as a juvenile. This however throws up all kind of problems particularly, when like Joe, driving offences are involved. You can legally drive at 17, even 16 on scooters. How can we allow such people to be in charge of vehicles potentially capable of murder, if they will be tip-toed around like children when they have done wrong?

To be fair, it's an incredibly tough subject when 'children' are involved, but offenders are getting younger and younger, one only needs to look at the overpopulation of juvenile prisons. The longer we tip-toe around youths, wrapping them up in cotton wool, reassuring them everything's going to be okay, worse crimes will be committed. There is no form of deterrent if you're allowed your Mum to fight your corner for you. 

Quite frankly, the whole system is a mess, and with such campaigns and distorted views on children and their rights, the future is worrying.