What is the best way to try children in court?

Children should have been dealt with before they even give rise to concern &, certainly, not in the Courts.

How typical of this country that the ink isnt even dry on the verdict than the professional apologists are at it again. The age of criminal responsibility needs to be lowered not raised, as most of the feral 8/9 year olds out there think they are above the law. As an alternative, laws to make parents responsible for their childs actions - similar to the dangerous dogs act.....

I had hoped a change of Government might do something to quieten down these people but apparently not.

AS USUAL MORE CONCERN FOR THE CRIMINALS THAN FOR THE VICTIM.

Children today are all scum who should be tried as adults and deserve the worst punishments we can dream up for them.

At least that seems to be the prevalent attitude in the printed media and on many forums, often including this one.

Personally I think interrogationg a little girl in court for 4 hours is a bit harsh and likely to be counter-productive, but then I'm just a bleeding heart liberal.

I don't wish to challenge the jury in this case; they, after all, heard all the evidence and came to a verdict.

I find it highly disturbing, nonetheless, that the girl allegedly said she made up a story in order not to lose out on sweets!

How very easy it is to make allegation which, if proved false, will mar the lives of these children, let alone the false accusations which ruin the lives of teachers, carers and others.

Thankfully trials like this are few and far between, and as I understand it, many formalities were dropped or downgraded in order to make the situation less intimidating. I am sure that lessons will be learned from this trial and its outcome but I hope we do not have a knee-jerk response to a situation that requires deeply profound consideration.

Sure didn't we have this exact same HYS recently, complete with brigades of swivel-eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth loons calling for the execution of children and the like?

I look at it this way: Holding 10-year-olds up as criminally responsible is on a par with - and just as despicable as - some 3rd World warlord using them as soldiers. Of course I'd hazard a guess that some inadequates around here would see nothing wrong with that.

It's nice to know that you always can count on the Scottish Government to do something stupid.

So instead of 8 year olds and upwards being dealt with by the excellent Childrens Panels we will now have 8/9/10/11 year olds who are untouchable by the law - just what we really need, especially as most of these kids know the law better than the police.

I only hope that they are honest enough to produce records of how crime has risen in that age group as a result.

I do not agree children should not be tried at all: criminal behavior serious enough to warrant criminal charges can be an indicator of criminal behavior at a later age. However such trials should occur without the presence of the press and should mostly rely on technical evidence rather than on what the defendants say during the trial. The same should be true for trials involving adults: cross-examinations are confusing to most people and science has persistently shown that the human memory is severely flawed and easily tricked by things like cross-examinations which are also pitfalls of logical fallacies the lawyers hope will escape the attention of the judge or jury. This emphasis on accounts rather than physical evidence may serve lawyers well but it doesn't serve justice and is unscientific (a lot of assumptions lawyers, judges and juries make about what people should or shouldn't be able to remember and how fluently they should be able to answer questions are totally wrong according to modern science).

The trouble with setting a fixed age of criminal responsibility is that different children mature at different ages. It is not a case of one size fits all.

This particular case involved two boys charged with a sexual offence against a younger female.

If they were guilty then that means firstly the girl correctly understood what the boys were doing to her, secondly that she could adequately communicate this, thirdly that the boys were physically capable of both the intent and the act and forthly that this could be proved within a court of law to the satisfaction of the law. In view of the ages of those involved I find this very difficult to believe.

I expect this verdict to be challenged.

Children should at least be allowed to be seated next to someone comforting. A Parent, or Care-worker, or anyone that can give the child relief from duress.

The adult can also help the child choose their words a little better, as the person that gives them support is most likely to understand what the child is actually trying to communicate.

Children are not adults and do not have the same mental capacity as adults and therefore they should not be treated as adults when tried - regardless of what they are accused of.

One of our most fundamental principles of law is the right to a fair trial. How can we say it is fair for a child to face a full adult hearing? It is stressful enough for an adult to face trial, how can we expect a young child to cope with the overwelming, confusing procedures of our traditional system? Can a trial be fair if the defendant doesn't understand what is happening?

Unfortunately many people say 'well they have been found guilty, so it doesn't matter'. This is a paradox. If the trial itself is unfair, then how can the guilty verdict be safe? This is NOT about the criminal's rights coming before the victim's - this is about ensuring we have a FAIR TRIAL which is the only way to ensure justice is served.

The criminal age of responsibility should not be changed. Instead we need to equip juvenille courts with the powers necessary to trial children of serious crimes. At the moment they are only a child's version of the magistrate courts and therefore only hear lesser offenses. We need a child's version of Crown Court as well - with very serious charges a fail trial is of even more importance.

I don't know enough about child psychology to say if its right or wrong for 10 year olds to stand trial. All I can say is that at the same age I knew right from wrong.

But if its not appropriate for children to be held responsible for their actions, then the parents should be held to account.

Obviously, accusations against children have to be tested throroughly to establish guilt or innocence. However, this needs to be done in an appropriate way so that all the child participants, accused and witnesses, can understand the procedures. In numerous cases, reports note that the children were overwhelmed or bored or not clear exactly what was going on. This is not justice. In Scotland they have Children's Panels that try to examine the matter thoroughly in a way that the children understand. This is a much better way. Child offenders need to know that they have done wrong and that they must make amends if possible; but the full panoply of a court of law is not the best way to dp this. Anyone who believes a child should be tried in an adult court should also, logically, have no objection to child jurors - a patent nonsense.

However, I do not believe there should be an age below which children escape any responsibility for their actions. This is a sure way of leaving aberrant behaviour unaddressed. Children, however young, who commit crimes need to know that a wrong has been done. Many child offenders have been left to run wild without parental guidance and support and have little moral sense at all. An investigation into their wrongdoing that is uncompromising in its attitude to the offence, but creative and imaginative in its redemptive approach to the offender would be a much better way.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I'm probably in the minority but yes, I think they should be tried and I disagree with raising the age limit.

There have been far too many crimes like this recently in Britain with 9-11 year olds attacking other children or even other adults in such brutal ways. Maybe slightly harsher punishments and giving more rights to the victims (adults or children) will help reduce these kind of incidents.

Do you think children should face trial in court?
I think you’d come closer to the truth if the judge dealt with this entire situation in camera.
I agree with the NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) that an 8-year-old victim is too young to cope with cross-examination…But so is a 10-year-old “accused”.
Your “age of responsibility” is too low. It should be in line with other European countries.

Here we go again the "Do Gooders" on on the road again.
How long will it be before all courts of law are abandoned?
Will we get to a point when we will only have victims as all criminals will be pardoned when detained.
When will this country wake up.
If you are old enough to commit a crime then you are old enough to be punished.

The Old Bailey? That brings to mind all the trials of the past where people were found guilty of stealing a loaf of bread and hung or transported to Australia.
I am interested to know that if these 2 boys are guilty as they were found by the jury, where did they get the ideas from? Was it poor parenting, schooling or what?
The trial raises more questions than producing answers.

It seems foolish to treat children the same as adults. It is one of the main reasons why discipline has failed in schools. It is completely wrong headed and bad for society.

Should the age be raised?

That's difficult. I would have thought that by the age of 8/9 children do know right from wrong. I don't think it should be raised. Those children killing and attacking under the age of 12 are very likely to know what they are doing is against the law.

If this is what sex education in classes at a young age results in, maybe schools and the Government need to think about rasing the age of THAT first.

This "age of criminal responsibility" thing? If a person is below that age, who is criminally responsible for their actions?

However, I think this case coming to court was stupid unless these culprits have a sustained record of ciminal activity. I mean, for pete's sake sex education (particularly as it pertains to society and the law) is hardly thick on the ground in this country. This action will only serve to reinforce what's still a taboo.

People reach the age of puberty. Not only are they curious but they undergo biological change that prepares them for reproduction. It comes with urges and some amazing discoveries. Even if you wanted to, you can't send it back.

Still, we have to keep control in society, live with our taboos, and now, thanks to this case, criminalise people for responding to natural changes in their bodies.

If we really don't want people experimenting with their sexual selves at puberty, let's put bromide in the water supplies - we already lace water with enough stuff that should never be there.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

It seemes so obvious to me ....
Decide on the age of legal responsibility and then hold the Parents responsible for the actions of their children below that age.

That's the way it is in many European countries and it works.

The case should have been heard in camera. Trying children as adults is a travesty of justice. Of course what they did was despicable but the correctional services have to respect them as children. Psychological guidelines should be followed to the letter especially when children are involved. There could have been shocking extenuating circumstances!

After following this case I feel that the way in which these children were dealt with concerning the courts is perfectly reasonable. If children at such a young age can indulge in criminal activity that is more commonly associated with adults then they should expect to go through the adult system.
It is completely out of order for children to think that they can do whatever they want and get away if it, or recieve a weaker sentence simply on account of their age. Everything a person does is met with consequences, be they good or bad, and children must learn this.
In terms of the victim in this case, her statements appeared to differ and the case was almost lost. After working and living with children I can see why her statement may not have been conclusive. After great amounts of pressure children will become bored and confused and will simply say whatever they feel will make things better. These were experienced lawyers who are capable of making a grown man falter in his statement, how is a child, a minor meant to be able to cope under the same pressure.
I personally feel that a child psychologist or specialist should be present throughout court proceedings concerning children, in order to protect them from being pressured too much.

I actually cried for all three of these children.

I can't judge if the girl told the truth, and after the interrogation she has been through, nobody can judge that anymore, not even she herself. Anybody who knows anything about children can tell you that.

This may have been a normal children's game, that may have gone a bit too far for the little participants, but it need not have been traumatic to any of them if it had been dealt with properly -preferably by nobody but the parents!
This should never ever have been taken to court.

The lives of those two poor little boys are ruined, most likely undeservedly.
As for the girl; I bet that if she ever gets abused for real, by a manipulative adult, she'll make sure to not say ANYTHING to her parents because she wants to avoid being dragged back into court!

We should stop criminalizing our children, especially our sons.

It was wrong to hold the case in court, it should have been held in camera to minimise the risk of additional distress for the children involved.

"Sledgehammer" and "Nut" come to mind when reading reports about the circumstances surrounding this gross over-reaction by the extremely PC people running the PCS (pun intentional). If any charge was due against the two boys involved, it should have been limited to "Assault" for the fact that they removed the girl's underwear forcibly instead of using the age-old "You show me yours and I'll show you mine" ploy.

When I was their age, it was fairly common practice for kids (without brothers, sisters or other family members to observe at bath time) to innocently play 'Doctors and Nurses' with their friends. Among other naughty experiments, this was to find out why girls had to sit while boys could stand when needing to pee. It was also the essential "SexEd 101" lesson that most kids had to undertake to keep up with their peers in families with multiple children.

How on earth "Attempted Rape" reached the charge sheet totally escapes me. At 10 years old, damned few boys are yet capable of attaining the physical attributes required to make them capable of such an act - so the charge seems somewhat malicious as well as over the top. The girl herself told the court that her original statement was an exaggeration made to defer her mother's wrath. How much of her subsequent evidence was given to agree with the spin and leading questions of the police and her mother's comments at home during the period of delay before the charges and trial?

The whole case, its findings and sentences need to be quashed and consigned to the trash can of excessive zeal and twisted adult thought processes used to milk a reasonably innocent encounter between very young children into a headline-grabbing paedophile trial at the highest criminal court in the land. A black day indeed for the British Justice system.

"How typical of this country that the ink isnt even dry on the verdict than the professional apologists are at it again."

Well thats easy - if you don't like the country, get out.

I think this case was handled quite wrongly.

Children of 8 or 10 will know that it is wrong to hurt someone else - but even then, unless it involves severe injury, going to court is the wrong thing to do. They will also probably know it's wrong to steal or lie.

However, I wouldn't expect them to know that there's anything seriously wrong with sexual exploration (IS it that seriously wrong with that?). Maybe they know it's a bit 'naughty' - but not something they could get put in prison for!
If it WAS rape - non-consensual - then that's one thing, but if it was consensual play, then it just needed a stern, but caring, word from parents.

From the reports, it sounds unclear what was actually involved, and could well have just been playing. The way the children were cross-examined means that probably no-one will ever know what actually happened - and even the children may be unsure themselves. It was just badly handled.

Also, I think the children should definitely not have to sign the sex-offenders' register based on the evidence given, that's just silly.

Yes I do. These kids knew exactly what they were doing, and should face a heavy penalty for it. Stop wrapping these brats in cotton wool! And make their parents pay for the court costs. There is far too much disruption in society today caused by these young yobs. Come down heavily on them now, and they may stand a chance of growing up one day!

The trouble is, what is a child? And at what age to they become responsible or start understanding legal processes?

I have met children of 16 that I am pretty sure have no real understanding of the idea of law, order and responsibility, and then again, I have see children of 10 who have it pretty well sorted out.

This underlines why we have to be so careful of the process so that in the same way as we make sure one child does not pull the wool over our eyes, another child does not drown in the process.

It is almost impossible to see how you can make a system that is flexible enough to deal with young minds at wildly varying levels of maturity, and yet can be politically sold to the public.

Mind you, I think we can safely ignore the "flog 'em" brigade. They are not worth the consideration of any civilised person.

Do not put children in court in the first place.

The age of criminal responsibility needs to be raised. While the supporting services need to be proactively engaged to avoid children reaching the criminal justice system.

In a number of instances, the Edlington 2, the parents also need to feel the full force of criminal justice system since they are guardians of their children and responsible for their actions.

Any parent nowadays can see that children mature much earlier than thet did. Some 10 year olds are mature enough to attend court, some aren't. You cannot make a blanket policy on this.

But you have to have ways of making those who are suspected of criminal account for their actions, and you have to react accordingly to the outcome or verdict.

We are lucky in the UK that there is not a lot of serious crime committed by young children. What if we had to deal with the child soldiers who are indoctronated into violence and murder?

A case that should never have gone to court.

Is this the first time in history that young boys have
'played around' with young girls? Absolutely not!

A good chastisement (not allowed) and/or a visit to a
police station (nobody would be there) would probably
have done the trick. It did in the old days.

Instead, the target-driven CPS has:

- stigmatised the girl for life
- criminalised the two boys for life
- made it imperative that the girl's family moves away
- and ditto for the boys' families

Not a bad day's disruptive work by a dreadful organisation
in the guise of 'seeking the truth'.

Can you all remember being 10? I can and knew that murder/rape/theft etc. was wrong, illegal and not how to behave. So yes kids should be dealt with accordingly.... taking them to court and the case should demonstrate the severity of what they have done, because the blooming punishments wont!

I don't know

It is a sad fact of modern day life that most ten year olds know fully well what they are doing sexually and criminally. Recent cases show a need for the age of criminal responsibility to be lowered to possibly as low as seven years and parents should be held account for their childrens behaviour too.

It is quite right that young sex offenders be placed on the Sex Offenders Register and it should be for life. There should also be an Irresponsible Parents Register with parents being forced to pay compensation to the victims.

As a society, we need to stop exposing our children to the sort of TV programmes, computer games and films that encourage this sort of behaviour. School teachers and Police should be given back the powers to administer corporal punishment with the birch and Borstal given to repeat and more serious offences.

Yes these children should of been dealt with in this way. If they wasnt dealt with in court then they would of thought oh well we got away with this we can do it again. When I first seen this story about the rape I really was sickend children should not be knowing about things at such a young age it's time that the governemt sort the media out and stop showing sex and assualts on tv them just maybe things like this wont happen!!!

A 10 year old apparently knows enough to try and have sex with a girl? You surely have to be joking?
Perhaps our schools driven and aided by other 'do gooders' have spent too long explaining sex to kids in their mistaken crusade to make criminals and perverts out of every adult in the land.
Perhaps this case has shown that we really need to rethink a huge amount, perhaps Nick your call for massive reform is still not massive enough.

A court room is not a good place for children because they don't understand what is happening, but it is important that children can give evidence in cases. In my experience a pre-taped video interview is NOT good evidence, as in my experience the police have been known to condition the children before the interview to say what they need to prosecute, then when the child is free to give their own version of events it changes the picture drastically. I believe the little girl involved in the 'rape' case has been far more traumatised by the court proceedings than by anything the boys did to her. The verdict in that case also sets a very dangerous precedent for all little boys caught playing 'you show me yours & I'll show you mine', it infers that the boys understood what they were doing & malicious intent. I am shocked that this case made it to court on only word of mouth evidence. I tried to take action against my ex husband for rape but was actively dissuaded from even putting in a report because it was too difficult for the CPS to get a prosecution. I don't understand why a little girl's allegations were taken with more weight than mine when I knew full well that what was happening to me was wrong & in my case there was malicious intent by my ex.

I hope all of the children involved in this case are given access to proper counseling, they're going to need it.

9. At 11:48am on 25 May 2010, greatDCC79 wrote:

"If they were guilty then that means firstly the girl correctly understood what the boys were doing to her"

This makes no sense. If a child being abused doesn't understand what's happening to them no crime has taken place?

What is with this obsession with "sexual crimes"??? Why these children were subjected to a trial in the first place?

From what I saw in the news reports their "crime" was just normal curiosity of growing human beings. "I'll show you mine if you show me yours"? Lots of children do that at that age. Where is the crime in that? And the girl was a willing participant (she is a growing human being as well, why wouldn't she be?).

Now, these 2 boys will be registered as sex offenders, which basically kills any prospects of them having any future in life before their life has even started.

I find all this disgusting and cruel.

As a significant but growing minority of under 16s in this country believe that they can do exactly what they like in schools , at home and on the streets, then if we want to continue developing this belief, these boys should have been told (very politely and, God forbid, with absolutely no raising of the voice) not to do it again. They then should have been taken on a free holiday somewhere nice. It is ridiculous for British adults to believe that British children can behave in a sensible and thoughtful manner (we'll leave that to the children of the rest of Europe - for evidence look at the relative behaviour of British and other European children in any airport). They're simply not old enough. Besides, we want all our children to hold firm in our belief that there should be no consequences for their actions -the motto of a significant number of State secondary schools,parents, the Law and the liberal do gooders living securely in lovely suburbs untouched by trivial incidents such as this.

When will the parents be prosecuted ? Let us not forget it is the parent responsibility.

I think children should be tried in court, they should film the whole event and show it in schools.

We ahve to stop cuddlign up to children and treat them as young adults. I am sure the experience might be enough to frighten some would be offenders.

I agree with CM2188, there should be a special Children's Court and system in place for all cases involving children.
I don't believe however, serious accusations such as these should be ignored. I was appalled to read one newspaper describing it as a "harmless game of doctors and nurses" or words to that effect. What if the allegations were true? The children involved need to know and understand that their behaviour was wrong and to be dealt with accordingly - as children though.
Kids are much more savvy these days, I am shocked at some of the things my 7yr old son comes out with from school! Whilst a lot of them may not know/understand the difference between right and wrong, it is up to us - the parents and society to display this.
So matters such as these should be dealt with and taken seriously, parents included, and as appropriately as possible for all the children concerned.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Criminal courts are no place for children.

Lots of people seem to get confused by the criminal justice system, thinking its only there for the purpose of revenge. Obviously serious crimes need to be dealt with, but in an appropriate manner by professionals qualified in the care/treatment of children.

one of your callers suggested a special court for young children, I couldn't agree more. Children are bombarded with sex and casual encounters every day on the television. Today these same children have no personal freedom, parents are obcessed with protecting them from everybody not known to them. I lost my little dog asked some ten year olds if they had seen him, their mother went wild and wouldn't even acknowledge me or my distress. I well remember at 8 or 9 years old exchanging 'looks' with the boys I was playing with, swimming on our local river with no clothes on, just for a dare. All three of poor children in this court case have had their young lives spoilt by the adults who seem to expect children to behave as adults.

Whilst I, at least, don't know all the facts of the court case as regards to what the attempted rape was, there is far more to be taken into consideration that just whether or not they were too young to be tried.

At the age of 10 the boys should have a moral understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Whether that means they should be tried the same as adults is more difficult to answer. Whilst at the same time yes it must be stressfull to the two young boys imagine how the young girls parents are feeling.

You also have to realise that attempted rape implies that the boys were developed enough to do things like that. You can lay blame all around or you can point the fingers, but what will that solve? We need to do something about the incapable parents, the uncontrollable kids.

At the end of the day it is not the method of trial that is all that important but the treatment after. Will the girl get good enough counselling? Will the boys? Will the boys be monitored for more behaviour similar to this? Many more questions come to mind...The trial gave me more question than answers

Surely the issue is why two children have been convicted of any type of sexual assault yet alone rape.To be convicted of a sexual crime should recognise the capability of the accused to be capable of a sexual act.These boys are not capable of ejaculation&therefore the charge should have been one of assualt.

A shameful verdict

The age of criminal responsibility should remain at eight in Scotland,by this age the individual knows right from wrong unless there are some mitigating factors such as mental incapability/aberration or a purely reactive aberration like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or something like the form of autism where the individual is incapable of empathy,this is patently not mitigation in this case or we would have read of the courts judgment on this or similar mitigation.If either boy can be proven to be unable to grasp the wrongness of their actions then that definitely complicates matters.Lets not forget the trauma of their victim in all this heart-searching and hand-wringing,an eight year old girl was subjected to severe and traumatic abuse at the hands of these two boys,I am NOT saying we should treat them as we would two adults who committed such a crime,obviously they need to become aware of just HOW seriously adults view this particular form of anti-social,criminal behaviour.I am no behavioural specialist and cannot envisage exactly how we "re-program" such children to behave normally,but I'm thinking that the Jamie Bulger case should have allowed us to learn SOMETHING about what to do in these cases.The case of Mary Bell in the sixties also springs to mind,Mary was a young girl who had not even reached her teens,but she admitted and was found guilty of the sustained torture and subsequent murder of two young boys,this case horrified the nation,understandably many called for psychiatric assessment of Mary,who was perfectly aware of what she was doing/had done,but was unrepentant and even shocked police and social workers by her obvious enjoyment in causing pain and suffering.These kinds of cases crop up every so often,where young sadists and killers are caught and our society understandably finds it difficult to accept that SOME children who commit these kinds of crimes,are fully aware of the criminality of their acts,as evidenced by the attempts of the likes of Jamie Bulgers killers and of Mary Bell to avoid justice by lies and deceptions.When Mary was confronted with the proof of her own guilt,she did not weep,as we might expect,but showed resignation at her being proved guilty,and then went on to describe in detail her horrific acts,all the time seeming to be content with herself,smiling and singing made-up songs relating to her crimes.Obviously there IS something wrong with individuals like this,but we cannot ever lose sight of two facts,One,the suffering of their victims,Two,the need to do something other than just say,"oh,they;re too young to really understand"Even if we accept that they knew they were engaged in a criminal act but are unaware of the SCALE of the wrong they commit,we cannot accept that justice is going to be absent in relation to how we cope with such juvenile criminals.Definitely a case for the worlds best specialists in the rehabilitation of juvenile criminals of this type and scale.Meanwhile the public's children must be protected from these individuals by detention orders of some kind.

There is absolutely no way this case should have been tried in an adult court. Of course, matters like this need to be dealt with but this was a perversion of justice.

Trials for 10 & 11 year olds? Cross-examining an 8-year old? Not our country's proudest day, I would suggest.

And why, oh, why are we reviewing this after the problem has played out before our very eyes. People in authority oversaw this; they could really have said: "Whoa guys, I think we are going to have to handle this in a different way". Presumably the legal and political professions are littered with intelligent people....just seems like their common sense may have been a bit lacking here.

Serious crimes deserve serious punishment, even jail, irrespective of age. Let them off and they will repeat the crime over and over again.

Courts are having to take this role with children because too many parents don't teach their own kids right from wrong. This is just a sad reflection of our society.

I'd agree with pzero that the age of criminal responsibility should be lowered, at the moment the lawless 8 & 9 year olds not only think they are above the law, they are! They know when they do wrong and know they cannot and will not be held to account.

Holding the parents responsible - I got issues with this, however hard I try I cannot see that holding one person to account for the actions of another can be justified.

Sure this is a serious issue for those concerned but could this be a case of ....

Two wee boys that got into trouble for doing something that should have been punished by a good talking to by a policeman ....... a good "thick ear" and then an apology to the girl face to face.. then sent to bed at 7pm for a week...

Instead we get a big hullabaloo ....

Could I suggest that in the next such trial the prosecution wear red noses, size 50 shoes, yellow and black checkered shirts and then ..... put the wigs back on again.

It may not be perfect to send children to trial at the old bailey but imho it is a lot better for a judge to decide on these cases then all these so called experts who believe they have all the answers.

I don't think I'm the only one who is totally fed up with child experts, who very often seem to have taken leave of their senses, telling us how to bring up our children.

If they are now on the sex offenders register this will surely mean they are no longer allowed near children. There's a couple of well balanced young adults then.

Children 0f 8 and 10 years old should not be expected to appear in court. Their statements can change, when they are put under pressure. The 10 year old boys are too young to be convicted of rape, but there should be another procedure to punish them, to show them that this is not an acceptable way to behave with a girl. The parents should be involved with the punishment. The boys need to be educated, about the effect their behaviour can have on others. The girl had probably heard the word rape, but did she understand what it actually was. The court case has probably but her through a great deal of trauma.

There is sex education in Schools introduced by labour. Most Schools have been showing a video to 9 and 10 year olds, which shows them in an animated form, in clear detail how to have sex. This is from the channel 4 living and growing series, entitled, How babies are made. it is recommended for age 7 upwards. It is put forward in the kind of way that children might think it is ok to try it out.

The very question raised by this HYS "What is the best way to try children in court" just goes to show how twisted and sick Britons notion of childhood is. Children aged ten should never go to court, period! The current case should have been mediated between the parents invovled and social council staff. Given that these children haven't even reached puperty they cannot complete a sexual intercourse. A rape claim is therefore at best preposterous and at worst a sickening stigmatization of a child that has not yet developed an adult understanding of right and wrong. Why on earth must they be put on the sexual offenders register? It would be not be surprising if one day the UK was referred to Amnesty International for cruel treatment of children in this respect.

Those who insist that children children committing adult crimes should receive adult punishment are simply symptomatic of just how dysfunctional Britains treatment of children is: Adults fail to take responsibility for their childrens actions (as well as so many other aspects of their own lives). If anyone should go to court it should be the parents given they are the guardians of their children. Changing the law so that adults are legally responsible for their childrens actions would be much more desirable.

The longterm outcome of this court case is two children's lifes ruined from now on into adulthood with ensuing social problems and repeated criminal offences. Is that the society all those shrill and righteous HYS posters want their own children to grow up in?

When the offence was committed these children were still at an age to drop their pants and show all to each other - it's what young children do. If properly brought up they generally understand the rights and wrongs of hurting somebody or damaging something because it can be explained and demonstrated to them, but at that age they don't understand the concept of sexuality.

Putting two children on the sex offenders' register is ridiculous. What about when they find 5 year olds playing doctors and nurses?

I can't see that this will have helped the little girl much either.

I think its ludacrous that people show more concern for the criminal than the victim. If the children were adult enough to know what they were doing then we have a right to try them in an adult law. who's to say they wont do it again if they are tried under a juvenial law. they should be punished like the other criminals who commit these forms of offence. The Old Bailey was an appropriate place to try them two boys

The court is the right place to try anybody who is accused of breaking the law. In the case where it is a child who is accused the parent or guardian should stand in the dock along side them and they should take joint responsibility for the crime. If they are foung guilty then both should be sentenced.

It's true to say that some children are just plain naughty and need to be dealt with in an appropriately stern manner, such as cases of stealing, minor assualt, criminal damage and general 'anti-social' bahaviour...BUT occassionally a child comes along and does something truely horrific and aweful, as in this case, and it's easier for society to label them 'evil' and demand swift retribution, rather than except that occassionally a child becomes so damaged by their upbringing it makes them behave in a way that no sane humanbeing would. In these cases, I don't think an adult style trial is or can be helpful.

Before you start labelling me as some sort of 'bleeding heart liberal' (as is the popular way on HYS to shout anyone down who holds such opinions), I'm not saying they shouldn't face any sort of trial or be punished. I'm saying that such a young damaged individual wont respond to being dealth with as you would your average 'naughty' child. They WONT learn any lessons, they WONT rehabilitate and they WILL remain a danger to the public if ever released. There is, however, a possibility that you MAY be able to sufficiently recover the humanbeing in them if some thought is given to a less 'one size fits all' approach to punishment and rehabilitation...unless of course you advocate capital punishment of young children or locking them up indefinitely??

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

A child's age - 8, 9, 10 or 11 - is just and arbitrary measure, people mature and develop at different speeds dependant on lots of factors in their heritage, back-ground and environment. It is therefore foolish to try to apply a strict rule to as to when they might be deemed criminally responsible.

Perhaps there should be individual assessments of children by qualified professionals to determine their level of understanding and therefore responsibility?

The last government spent most of its time gaining control of our childrens lives.Add that to the fact that most of the imput came from single busybodies.Who knew plenty about theory but absolutely nothing about bringing up children.On top of this children in some sections of GB society have become a cash crop.With more than a few remarks at the school gate like."THATS GOT LITTLE JOHNY OF MY HANDS FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS."Then we have a large section of parents that have grown up in a society in which NANNY STATE will do everything for them.Thus producing a parent that thinks responsibility is for other people.Why else in the 21st century would you need parent classes.Child allowance like all good ideas has long past its sell by date.Children are the seed corn of a nation.In GB the beleive in nothing me first and how cool it is to be thick cyndrome is king.Do not blame the children grow up yourselves.

"36. At 12:45pm on 25 May 2010, Ben Blair wrote:
Can you all remember being 10? I can and knew that murder/rape/theft etc. was wrong, illegal and not how to behave."

At the age of 10 I'd never even heard the word rape let alone knew what it meant.

I feel sorry for all the children involved in this case. I've seen a rape trial and it is harrowing enough for adults. This case should have been dealt with out of the eye of the media and with a great deal of understanding and compassion for all involved.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I don't know enough about the case or how aggressive the boys were. Those of us who innocently played show me yours in the 70s are not clued up on the youth of today. They are just not as innocent. We read more of sexual incidents even at primary school so something is amiss in the way our children view sexual behaviour. Sadly we have to teach them about inappropriate sexual behaviour much younger to protect them from predatory older kids. Society has done this and yes perhaps these children deserved to be tried. But that's a sad reflection on this country and its education and parental system.

"#36. At 12:45pm on 25 May 2010, Ben Blair wrote:
Can you all remember being 10? I can and knew that murder/rape/theft etc. was wrong, illegal and not how to behave. So yes kids should be dealt with accordingly.... taking them to court and the case should demonstrate the severity of what they have done, because the blooming punishments wont!"

I don't think I even knew what rape was when I was 10, and I'm damn sure my own 10 year old son doesn't now, and therein lies the difficulty.

Different children will develop at different times/speeds. This doesn't mean you set a high age of responsibility knowing that some will 'get away' with what they knew was a crime, or set it low accepting that you'll convict some that didn't know what they were doing. We need to have individual assessment - did this child know what he was doing was wrong; not would the average child this age have understood? If someone has diminished responsibility (due to insanity) we don't ignore it and say 'the average person would know it was wrong therefore...' we accept the individual needs particular assessment.

Step 1 should've been to determine if either one of the boys had even started puberty. Something tells me that at age 10, neither would have; puberty simply starts later in boys.

And if neither has reached puberty, that's the end of the case. Sorry, but they're simply not capable of rape, and that's the end of it. A charge of "attempted rape" makes a mockery of the entire justice system. And a "sex offender" charge, holy cow! They're physically not capable of it at that age, HOW THE HECK CAN THEY POSSIBLY BE SEX OFFENDERS!

I'm not sure if they should be tried in an adult court or not, but our "sex offender" laws clearly need to be fixed before they become too much of a laughing stock!

"10. At 11:54am on 25 May 2010, Rob wrote:
Children should at least be allowed to be seated next to someone comforting. A Parent, or Care-worker, or anyone that can give the child relief from duress.

The adult can also help the child choose their words a little better, as the person that gives them support is most likely to understand what the child is actually trying to communicate."
_________________________________________________________________________

"Your honour, when my son said 'yes' what he actually meant was 'no, he didn't do it and he has never seen the victim before'."

Or is that not what you meant?

Two years ago I was foreman of a jury in the trial of a young man who was accused of an assault on a young girl of nine.

The girl was videoed giving a statement to the police, and was cross-examined via a CCTV link in the court. What impressed myself and the other jurors was the way this young girl stood up to the cross-examination. She seemed a self assured child, who understood the seriousness of the situation.

Because of her evidence, which did not waver, and the failure of the young man to give a plausable explination of his actions, he was found guilty.

It's not the legal process that should be questioned here, it is the concept of treating children as having the same understanding of their actions as adults. The girl just told her story, straight and truthful. She understood what had happened was wrong, but not the legal aspects of the trial.

We must ask ourselves is society better off for this trial? I for one am not too sure.

Incidentally, the rest of the jury felt like me that we had done a good public service, the following week we had a two day trial of a woman accused of stealing a very small amount of money from a registered charity. This we found demeaning, a waste of our time and money(£10,000/day).

36. At 12:45pm on 25 May 2010, Ben Blair wrote:
"Can you all remember being 10? I can and knew that murder/rape/theft etc. was wrong, illegal and not how to behave. So yes kids should be dealt with accordingly.... taking them to court and the case should demonstrate the severity of what they have done, because the blooming punishments wont!"

Honestly? I think you're kidding yourself if you think you had a full concept of what it meant to cause someone pain and suffering at the age of 10. I think what you actually mean is adults told you it was wrong to cause pain and suffering to another person, and you would be punished if you ever did. It's only really after a certain amount of life experience when you progress through your teens that you start to develop your OWN moral sense of what is 'right' and 'wrong'.

The point i'm trying to make is that if these 10 year olds hadn't received the correct guidance from a responsible adult, what is required MORE than simple harsh punishment now is the correct guidance (through rehabilitation) in order to make them realise WHY what they did was wrong. I know many HYSers will lambaste me for being some sort of 'tree-hugging' 'bleeding-heart' liberal, but I've given real consideration to these sort of cases, and what makes perfect common sense to me is that some people are past simple punishment and require a different approach if they are ever to be released back into society...that is if you don't advocate capital punishment or indefinite detention of a young child??

We'e not talking pinching a chocolate bar here

If 'children' are capable of actually performing 'rape' then they should be dealt with accordingly and that mean in the courts.

Its the media who wind all this up so perhaps there should be a reporting ban

Another thought - if a child is deemed too young to be sent to court then their parents, who are responsible for them should be prosecuted in their place.

really? signing the sex offender's register, aged 10?

I'm going to revisit Brass Eye's paedo special tonight, just to prove to myself that this story hasn't been lifted from there. in the meantime, could anyone with a clue pop by the UK this afternoon?

One way might be to help children avoid the process altogether by requiring parents to take greater responsibility for their children.

We live in a society where children can be murdered within 50 yards of their own home by their own parents, neighbours, step-parents etc and yet young children are allowed to go off on their own unsupervised.

Many crimes involving children are totally avoidable if simple common sense measures are taken.

Unfortunately, common sense does seem to be in short supply these days.

Children at the ages of the boys in question are aware of what is right and wrong and should realise if they commit serious crimes they will be tried in a court of law. The little girl who was attacked by these two boys was obviously aware that what they had done to her was wrong.

Children need to be made aware that if they kill, sexually abuse or rape another child and are caught and proved guilty they will be dealt with severely. A slap on the wrist sends out a message that its OK to do what and to whom you like and there are no consequences. Also committing crimes of this nature are not a game.

I do however think that learning about your resonsibility to society begins at home and it is every parents duty to ensure their offspring know the difference between right and wrong. Children are being allowed to have the upper hand because they know the law in some cases better than their parents.

If we as a society say its OK to do what you like as a child what will they do when they become adults.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

Unfortunatly kids grow up too fast now, so the idea of raising the age is not on the table for me. However I'm not sure just what at this age a trial in an adult nature is supposed to achieve. The children should be dealt with in a way that can best determine what is to be done with them but the parents should be put on trial as adults. They are supposed to be responsible for the actions of their children, if they won't take that responsibility themselves then a court of law should hold them responsible.

To try or not to try - that is the question.

I feel certain that if children with criminal intent learned that there would be no repercussions to their actions many more incidents of this sort would result.

Most youngsters these days can quote their rights to anyone in authority and if they can do this they surely know when they are breaking a moral or legal code.

Perhaps a child friendly court system should be set up for just such cases where experienced court officials give all the 'comfort' the young offender needs.

What sort of country do we live in that mere babies are damaging each other in this way? Every person on earth hurts when struck so these youngsters can't be unaware that they are causing pain.

I agree with those that say that our children are exposed to far too much sex and violence whether it be on TV or computer games. It is the lack of strict discipline within the home that allows a young child to turn to criminal assault. Keep your son or daughter close - know where they are night and day and that way your child won't end up in court either as a victim or a perpetrator.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Too young? The problem seems to be that the worse the crime is, the harder it is to define the appropriate age. Had the boys been out vandalizing or thieving then it's easy to accept that some form of punishment is due. Take that up to rape or murder then somehow they cease to be responsible. Adults just don't have the mental capacity to deal with this.

I don't know the answer to this. I don't think anyone does.

I think maybe there should be some crossover of responsibility from parent to child. Children aren't born bad, but they have to be taught to be good.

Victims rights should be always above the wrongdoers.

41. At 12:48pm on 25 May 2010, Queen_Becci_B wrote:

I believe the little girl involved in the 'rape' case has been far more traumatised by the court proceedings than by anything the boys did to her."

Exactly.

She knew they (all three) were being 'naughty' - but would you take children to court for pinching a biscuit from the cupboard when Mum's not looking? After all, it's stealing, so better nip it in the bud before it turns to bank robbery!

The problem is now the parents will probably blame the boys for any distress the girl suffers now, whereas it's really the CPS and parents who are responsible.

I followed this case with a growing sense of misgiving: when I think back to what I got up to at that age (and every other kid in our area), we all should have been put on the register long ago. However, in those days, people had more common sense, and quite rightly put it all down to childish curiosity and innocent games. If we were ever caught, we got a slap round the back of our legs from our mums, and that was that. None of us grew up to be sick or twisted or perverted, and to the best of my knowledge, none of us went on to be rapists or murderers either. People in this country seem to have lost their grip on reality.

No 10 is not too young - but, surely, the best thing would be to "try" the parents of minors as if they had committed the crime. If that ever came into force, parents would generally keep a much better eye on their offspring!

54. At 1:17pm on 25 May 2010, chrisk50 wrote:

Serious crimes deserve serious punishment, even jail, irrespective of age. Let them off and they will repeat the crime over and over again."

OK - but this wasn't a serious crime as far as we can tell.

Are we going to put a 6 year old girl on the sex offender's register because she touched her 4 year old brother's bits while they were in the bath together? (attempted rape AND incest...)

Okay am I the ONLY parent that feels the need to ask why were 8 and 10 year olds out on their own in the first place?......

You cannot put an age on justice - I know plenty of 8/9 year olds that could do with prosecution that are currently too young so then the parents need to be held responsible dont they.

28. At 12:29pm on 25 May 2010, wheat_from_chaff wrote:
"Sledgehammer" and "Nut" come to mind when reading reports about the circumstances surrounding this gross over-reaction by the extremely PC people running the PCS (pun intentional). If any charge was due against the two boys involved, it should have been limited to "Assault" for the fact that they removed the girl's underwear forcibly instead of using the age-old "You show me yours and I'll show you mine" ploy.

When I was their age, it was fairly common practice for kids (without brothers, sisters or other family members to observe at bath time) to innocently play 'Doctors and Nurses' with their friends. Among other naughty experiments, this was to find out why girls had to sit while boys could stand when needing to pee. It was also the essential "SexEd 101" lesson that most kids had to undertake to keep up with their peers in families with multiple children.

How on earth "Attempted Rape" reached the charge sheet totally escapes me. At 10 years old, damned few boys are yet capable of attaining the physical attributes required to make them capable of such an act - so the charge seems somewhat malicious as well as over the top. The girl herself told the court that her original statement was an exaggeration made to defer her mother's wrath. How much of her subsequent evidence was given to agree with the spin and leading questions of the police and her mother's comments at home during the period of delay before the charges and trial?

The whole case, its findings and sentences need to be quashed and consigned to the trash can of excessive zeal and twisted adult thought processes used to milk a reasonably innocent encounter between very young children into a headline-grabbing paedophile trial at the highest criminal court in the land. A black day indeed for the British Justice system.

You might want want to re-read your post and consider your own "twisted thought processes" there. Based on little more than media reports of the case and your own pre-conceptions, you've conducted your own trial and come up with an entirely different verdict from that of the court. Or where you actually there to hear all the evidence ?

61.....consumer junkie.....What about the little girl? You failed to mention her in your rush to excuse these two boys behaviour.What if it had been YOUR daughter?

I think the biggest challenge in a case like this is to balance the need to ensure that in the exceptional cases that the appropriate punishment is arrived at while remembering that we are dealing with children. This for me is the key. Good news is you don't need to re-invent the wheel, take a look at the Irish Law (see summary link below) but main points/focus of the law are:
- Every effort must be made to keep children out of court/jail.
- Age of criminal responsiblity is 14 except in case of serious offences (rape, murder..) in which case it is 10.
- Very clear rule for judges and lawors.

In all a balanced piece of legislation.

Link: https://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/justice/children-and-young-offenders/children-and-the-criminal-justice-system-in-ireland

It strikes me that there are two sides to this argument represented here: Those of us who played doctors and nurses when we were young and recognise that such behaviour is natural curiosity, which might have got us into trouble with our parents had we been discovered, but not landed us in a trial at the old bailey with our lives ruined before they had even begun - and those who didn't, who's resentment of that fact seems to have been festering ever since.

The willingness of people to publicly demonstrate their ignorance and small mindedness never ceases to amaze me.

These are children: even if a criminal proceeding was necessary - and given the fact that children's brains at this age are not fully developed I personally doubt it - then a more familly court setting and setup should have prevailed.

I don't know who I pity more: The three children in this case or some of the HYS contibutors? God only knows what horrendous experiences they must have had to form the twisted the views expressed here.

Didn't we have this argument the last time they Trialled under-age kids in Court? Both boys are very under-age and should have been dealt with in a children's court - So, what if they were found 'guilty' - would they have ended up in an adult male prison?

Can't understand either how after finding them 'not-guilty' they end up on the Sex-Offenders register? Kids of under 10 on an adult Sex-offender register - how stupid is that? Children at that age know absolutely nothing, they are still learning and experimenting and their heads are a jumble of stuff! When will those deciding these things ever learn? I think it was pretty stupid to even take it to Court and a total waste of tax-payers money !

I'm truly amazed at the number of comments in this topic that call for every kind of punishment from flogging to deportation to be meted out to very young children being very young children in their play and experimentation. What sort of neighbourhoods do you all live in that your hatred of kids warps your sense of justice and fair play to this extent?

Do you seriously believe that any exploration beyond the dumbed-down TV screen and the parentally-controlled family laptop is bad for a child? That all kids should be held prisoner at home and any not toeing that line are delinquents, monsters and incipient paedophiles?

Get a life! And, more importantly, allow children to have a life by experimenting and exploring just as we did when we were young. These convicted rapists were just as innocent as you were at the same age but the public smear of authoritarian disapproval will very soon change them into the very anti-social thugs that your unfounded accusations have convicted.

3. At 11:32am on 25 May 2010, Delirium wrote:
Children today are all scum who should be tried as adults and deserve the worst punishments we can dream up for them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

If this is the Case then we seriously need NOW TODAY to find out why this has happened.

For is it due to a complete lack of Discipline and Control of the Parents, and also due to the lack of Corporal Punishment to make the punishment fit the Crime?

Whatever the Answer is, it is true that today we have let "The Children" control "The Parents" whereby in many Cases this has and still is giving rise to Anti - Social Behaviour.

This has been now for a long time an Area in which our Government has been afraid to Act and set limits for the Common good of Children in case they offend the Policy of not Smacking Children.

While I would agree that we should try talking to any Child FIRST about what they have done wrong, but if trying to reason with a Child fails then there really is no other alternative but to Chastise any Child by the use of Corporal Punishment, otherwise we will be seeing more and more, Younger and Younger Children going into Care through our lack of stopping things BEFORE they get out of Hand.

It is now therefore time to push ALL the Do-Gooders aside whom think that all you need to do is to allow any Child to do just as they like, with only an intervention of asking them to stand upon a naughty - step for punishment.

Otherwise, we really do run the risk of many more Young Children turning into a culture of Scum.

60. At 1:28pm on 25 May 2010, lizbethb wrote:

There is sex education in Schools introduced by labour. Most Schools have been showing a video to 9 and 10 year olds, which shows them in an animated form, in clear detail how to have sex. This is from the channel 4 living and growing series, entitled, How babies are made. it is recommended for age 7 upwards. It is put forward in the kind of way that children might think it is ok to try it out.

it's all Labour's fault, naturally. of course it was the incumbent Labour government that made it mandatory for our entire year to watch an extremely explicit danish cartoon about sex education. in 1993, John Major's classless society!

years before that, we got to watch a video titled "conception to birth", with nothing left to anyone's imagination. that was in Thatcher's Britain.

I dare say that with regards to sex education, there's too little, there's an appropriate amount and there's too much. there's also being a prude with your head in the sand.

i made a comment earlier why was mine not used when you allow DELIRUM TO CALL ALL CHILDREN SCUM. whether he/she likes it or not they are our future, they are the future doctors, bin men, bus drivers, and judges you tell me how we would do without yhem god bless them all

my mistake hadden realise how you name parsticipants on own page. thanks