Juvenile Offenders Ordinance
Today, our society is becoming complex. When we read the newspaper, listen to the radio or watch television, there is no doubt that some news is related to crimes, for example, drug trafficking, indecent assault, injuries, gang violence, criminal intimidation, robbery, theft, criminal damage, triad activities and so on. An alarming picture appears, some of the aforementioned crimes involve young people; some cases (for example, the sale of pirated VCDs) involve some eleven or twelve year olds.
If a young person has broken the law, they will be prosecuted under the Young Offenders Ordinance. As a social worker, we will encounter similar situations or queries in our daily practices, so it is very important for us to gain some knowledge and understanding of the ordinance related to juvenile offenders.
The spirit and principles underlying the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance
Every society should admit that some kind of people are vulnerable, that they are easily under threats, attacks, diseases, etc. No one will assume that children are strong enough and capable of acting or thinking like a healthy adult. They should be protected and given as many opportunities as to develop their morality, body and abilities.
The law is not an exception to the above concepts. If we take a look at ordinances dealing with offenses involving juvenile offenders, we may be easily impressed by the relatively lenient treatment or punishment for these offenders.
So, who can be called a child or a young person? And who will the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance affect? Under the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance (Cap. 226 Sec. 2), “child” means a person under the age of 14, in the opinion of the court hearing any case relating to that person. “Juvenile” means a person who is 14 years of age or older and under 16 years of age, and it is clearly stated that no child under 7 years of age can be guilty of a crime.
If a youth has broken the law, they will generally be tried in the Juvenile Court; no person will be present at any session of the Juvenile Court except officers or anyone directly connected with the case in question. We can clearly see that juveniles are better protected from other external disturbances and everything we do is trying to minimize the psychological impacts on them.
There is a special separation of children and young people in police stations, courts and proceedings in the Juvenile Courts as well. Some restrictions are placed on the sentences of children and young people; for example, no child will be sentenced to prison or sent to prison for failure to pay a fine, damages, or costs. No youth will be sentenced to prison if he can be adequately treated in another way and, even if he were sentenced to prison, he will not be allowed to associate with adult inmates.
As we can clearly see from the above legal concepts related to juvenile delinquents, it is not difficult to notice that some principles and spirits are underlining the ordinance. As our society recognizes, children and young people are still developing their mental capacity and their cognitive capacity is not good enough to distinguish what is right or wrong, what is moral or immoral, and what is offensive or not. Personally, it is convenient to protect them as much as possible from the psychological impacts when they are under criminal prosecution or accusation.
Rather than sending juvenile offenders to jail, there are many other options generally available to the courts to rehabilitate juvenile offenders between the ages of seven and 14, for example the Community Support Service scheme, the discretionary scheme of the superintendent of police and soon. We must bear in mind that the options available to a court when dealing with juvenile offenders are primarily focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment, reflecting that society generally agrees that young people should be given opportunities and the opportunity to correct his bad deeds. As these youngsters mature, they will discover that they still have a chance to remedy what they have done wrong before, and relatively lenient punishments will minimize the possibility of ruining their lives.
Adequacy of the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance
In Hong Kong, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is based on the law. It shall be conclusively presumed that no child under the age of 7 can be guilty of a crime. Creates in Hong Kong a conclusive or irrebuttable presumption that a child is doli incapax (incapable of committing a crime), but above the age of seven, in respect of a child between the ages of seven and 14, the Hong Kong SAR follows the rule established common practice in medieval England that a rebuttable presumption will apply, the presumption can be rebutted by the prosecution with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that, at the time of the offence, the child was well aware that his act was grossly wrong , and not just mischievous or mischievous. When this presumption is refuted or eliminated, the full criminal responsibility of the child will be imposed, who may be charged, prosecuted and sentenced for any crime allegedly committed.
Like the concepts mentioned above, it seems that the child between the ages of seven and 14 is still protected from doli incapax, barring some exceptional circumstances, but I just want to point out that the criminal proceedings are long and complicated, it will create numerous psychological pressures for the young people prosecuted. or investigated. During the pleasant childhood year, they suffered from these pressures and procedures can also affect their studies.
In many other developed countries, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is higher than Hong Kong’s, it can ensure that more children are not subject to complicated legal prosecution, it not only reduces the pressure they will suffer, but also helps to reduce the legal costs.
Most children in Hong Kong start their preschool education at the age of three or four. School attendance is compulsory for children aged 6 or 15. The school must not only provide academic training for its students, but also has the task of developing their critical and reflective thinking, their moral attitudes and their social values. They are given opportunities to practice moral values and make moral decisions under the guidance of teachers. By the time children are seven years old, they have already received about four years of formal education (two years in kindergarten and another two years in primary education). Personally speaking, it is risky to assume that by the time a child reached the age of seven, he must have been instilled with the notion of “right” and “evil” and the necessary “moral attitudes” and “social values” essential for his recognition that a certain act it is a “serious evil” in the ordinary sense of the term.
It can also be argued that the enhanced educational opportunities available to today’s children mean that they reach social maturity more quickly than their counterparts in earlier times and are able to distinguish right from wrong at an early age, today’s children can be seen as more sophisticated. than their predecessors, but I believe that a better education does not necessarily guarantee a greater willingness to tell right from wrong because today’s kids may also be subject to higher levels of misinformation, which can impede their ability to tell right from wrong. evil. Furthermore, the current educational system places too much emphasis on intellectual development at the expense of moral development. I think Hong Kong may consider raising its age of criminal responsibility.
To reduce the possibility of an adult using these loopholes, harsh punishments should be implemented to uphold the law instead of severely punishing the minor being used and at the expense of their pleasant childhood.
Changes to the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance
In recent years, there have been calls to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Those in favor of change argue that it is undesirable to subject young children who are still socially and mentally immature to the full panoply of criminal prosecution, with the attendant penalties and stigma.
On the other hand, calls to review the law governing the age of criminal responsibility in Hong Kong are undoubtedly a response to crimes committed by minors in recent years. It reflects that our society is no longer tolerant of crimes committed by young people. Those in favor of lowering the current minimum age of criminal responsibility argue that bringing such young offenders into the criminal justice system in their formative years provides an opportunity for systematic rehabilitation. Sanctions imposed on a child reduce the likelihood that they will develop a lifelong pattern of delinquent behavior.
I hope we don’t take the problems as a simple question, don’t just think when you commit crimes, criminal justice will solve all these problems. Many of the youth are victims under the control of triad societies or unions. They don’t know how to resist threats or financial temptation from them. If we understand more about the crux of the problems, do something to determine that it doesn’t happen; it is more effective and beneficial. We can hand down harsh sentences to those adults who use teens to commit crimes. Furthermore, a child cannot be assumed to know the nature of the act simply because other children of his age and background would normally be considered to possess such knowledge.
Social Impacts Made by the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance
Today, the current minimum age of criminal responsibility states that children in their formative years should not be subject to criminal prosecution, as the trauma caused can be detrimental. It not only provides a framework of rules, which determine or recognize acceptable behavior patterns within society, but also avoids imposing the stigma of undesirable sentencing on a child. Apart from being unfair and inappropriate to subject a seven-year-old to the traumatic and confusing experience of appearing in court, it also avoids another undesirable effect of persecuting and convicting a young child that they will carry the stigma for the rest of their life. life. mistakes made at an early age. Once convicted, the child or youth will be left with a criminal record, which can negatively affect them in later life, eventually leading to a criminal career and alienation from society.
The impact is obvious, it implies that we have confidence in the education or rehabilitation services. We keep the faith that people can change or learn from mistakes. When our society accepts mistakes and keeps an open mind towards humans, society can progress towards a harmonious environment.