- Information
- AI Chat
Position Paper on Lowering Age of Criminal Liability
English 100
University of the Philippines System
Related documents
Related Studylists
POSITION PAPERPreview text
State vs Child ‘Criminals’: Lowering Age of Criminal Liability
Position Paper
Poverty as a person could be languishing in jail in perpetuity: It has been blamed for many social ills. One such ill is why many children commit crimes, especially street children. Most street children have become juvenile delinquents either out of necessity (because they are poor) or through force (because of the syndicates). Lately, videos involving minors while committing crimes are going viral ̶ a 15-year-old beating to death another minor with a piece of wood; a group of “street children” caught dragging an old man out of a public utility jeepney to get his purse; and minors stealing jeepney driver’s income. Moreover, news headlines in the recent years have the same tenor ̶ 14-yearold boy beats older sister to death (Inquirer, 2018); youngest surrenderer started drugs at 8 (The Freeman, 2016); drug war lists 20,584 kids as ‘users, pushers, runners’ (Abs-cbn, 2016). Basically, poverty and environment are the main enablers of children in conflict with the law (CICL). These current events put in the limelight the implementation and effectivity of Republic Act No. 9344, as amended, otherwise known as “The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (JJWA) of 2006.” In 2017, President Rodrigo Duterte called on Congress to lower age of criminal liability “to ensure that the Filipino youth would accept responsibility for their actions and be subjected to government intervention programs.” (Abs- cbn, 2017) In consistency with President Duterte’s goal to curb criminality in the country, Senate President Vicente Sotto III proposed the Senate Bill 2026 that seeks to lower the minimum age of criminal liability from the current 15 to 13 years old. The Bill ensures that those children in conflict with the law who are currently exempted from criminal liability who take advantage of the same must not be given the same privilege (Sotto, 2018).
However, this amendment shows that the government was effectively abandoning its responsibility to provide the youth with a decent future and depriving juvenile offenders of an opportunity to reform instead of realizing the root cause of why children are forced into a life of crime. Dr. Jose P. Rizal, the national hero of the Philippines, once said that the youth are the nation’s future. However, what future will these children have if they can be arrested and detained like adult offenders at a young age? Therefore, this paper opposes the proposal to lower the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR) from 15 years old to 13 years old as this
move only damages the best interest of the child and will not solve the problem of children committing crimes. It distracts us from the real reasons why children offend such as poor parenting and supervision, peer pressure, social isolation, family conflict, and poverty. With the foresaid reasons, this paper stands by maintaining the MACR at 15 years old, as amended by RA No. 10630, and the strengthening of our juvenile justice system by strict implementation of the existing laws and supporting stakeholders in improving our facilities for children in conflict with the law (CICL).
To support this position, this paper presents the following arguments: Lowering the age of criminal responsibility will result to negative consequences for children and the public. It will increase the number of children detained for long periods of time, making them more likely to become hardened offenders. Detention/Jail conditions in the Philippines are not rehabilitative. They are harsh: children have been reported to experience torture, physical, emotional, and sexual abuse while in detention. Research also shows that detaining children is more damaging to them than beneficial. It has a profoundly negative impact on young people’s mental and physical well-being (i., depression and poor mental health), their education (i., learning disabilities not recognized or addressed), and their future employment (i., reduces their ability to remain in the workforce) (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2013).
In addition, imprisoning children go against the best interest of the child and the rights of the child to maximum development. Lowering the MACR further reinforces the existing situation of syndicates using younger children in their criminal activities. The focus of the duty bearers should be on catching the adult syndicates instead of punishing the children, who are clearly the victims in these unfortunate circumstances.
Emerging knowledge about cognitive, psychosocial, and neurobiological development in adolescence also provides evidence that young people should not be held to the samestandards of criminal responsibility as adults. Steinberg, L., & Scott, E. (2003)’s study argued that “Adolescents’ decision-making capacities are diminished as they are less able to resist coercive influence and their character is still undergoing change.” Another study by Steinberg L. (2008) on adolescent risk-taking found that risk-taking increases between
as a whole. An older child of 16 years is able to consider rules based on intention and outcome thus can make informed decisions especially when properly guided. This older comprehension of morality is able to take into account other groups of people and society as a whole. These stages of development highlight that while children may appear to identify right and wrong behavior, they lack an appreciation for why rules exist and the implications of these rules in the society. Younger children, therefore, need protection from the law and should not be held criminally responsible for their actions.
C. Progress toward completion of cognitive and moral developmental stages can be detoured or delayed by cultural, intellectual and social disadvantage. Children in conflict with the law typically have risk factors such as poverty, mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, exposure to crime and violence, homelessness, child abuse and neglect. It is unreasonable to hold a child criminally responsible for actions made when a child is exposed in an impoverished and brutal environment. It is therefore unreasonable to expect a developing child to already discern right from wrong when he or she grew up in an environment and household where what is right may not be that different from what is wrong. Therefore, to hold a child criminally responsible for such is to put the entire community’s problems on the child’s shoulders. Furthermore, research has identified how hardships early in life such as experiences of child abuse and neglect can inhibit the development, result in intense and cumulative harm, and have long term impacts on health and social outcomes. In these settings, a child’s ability to develop important emotional, social and cognitive skills that are necessary for criminal responsibility is diminished, leading the child to be behind his or her peers in a broad range of competencies.
There are indeed challenges in implementing the JJWA and these must be effectively addressed. However, difficulties in implementing the law cannot be us ed to justify the amendment; otherwise, the rights of children will be compromised merely on the basis of expediency. This does not mean ignoring the complaints of government and other duty bearers tasked to implement the law. There are legitimate concerns that must be
attended to by means of thorough study of processes to assist CICL and children at risk. What is controversial, however, is the lack of evidence-based information to support the moves to lower the MACR and the negative impact of criminalizing children. Lowering MACR is a violation of the right of the child to genuine protection.
The cases of juvenile delinquency or criminal offense by children are increasing day by day and youth offenders are getting younger and bolder. However, children in conflict with the law are only victims of circumstances. While some of them may have, after discernment, willingly committed criminal acts, a vast majority of them are pushed to live a life that they did not choose. As the adults may have also failed them, with the flawed policies and decisions, it is plain cruelty to make them undergo a criminal proceeding and suffer the stigma of being called convicts. Thus, the legislation of this bill overlooks the real challenge which is according to advocates, lies in the failure of the State to properly deal with the so-called children in conflict with the law (CICL). Such failure deprives children of the opportunity to better their lives or, at the least, enjoy their childhood.
The solution to the growing problem in crime must target the root cause. The problem of CICL is a manifestation or a consequence of a dysfunctional society. The moral decadence in our society has reached such a level that calls for concern. A child offending must be seen as a product of a deteriorating values system and lack of role models in a family unit. They are not the problem to be solved but a resource to harness. The lowering of the MACR undermines all evidences regarding a child’s moral, intellectual and emotional development.
At this time, as youths of today, let’s use our voice to encourage the duty bearers to focus their efforts on fully implementing the JJWA, so they can effectively execute their responsibilities under the law. Let us also join and/or support programs that strengthen families and teaches parents on how to effectively raise their children without the use of corporal punishment and violence which have been found to increase delinquent behaviors in children. Moreover, effective programs and services to prevent young people from offending or re-offending and to facilitate diversion of CICLs must be established.
This paper reiterates its opposition to bring down the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 13 years old, and proposes to the duty bearers to direct their efforts in
Lucero, V. (2016). Drug war lists 20,584 kids as 'users, pushers, runners'. ABS-CBN. Retrived from news.abs-cbn/focus/09/21/16/drug-war-lists-20584-kids-as -userspushers- runners.
Sotto, V. (2018). Senate Bill 2026. Seventh Congress of the republic of the Philippines.
Steinberg, L., & Scott, E. (2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence: Developmental immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty. American Psychologist.
Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review.
The Freeman (2016). Youngest surrenderer started drugs at 8. Cebu: The Freeman. Retrived from philstar/the-freeman/cebunews/2016/08/16/1614010/youngest- surrenderer-started-drugs-8.
Position Paper on Lowering Age of Criminal Liability
Course: English 100
University: University of the Philippines System
This is a preview
Access to all documents
Get Unlimited Downloads
Improve your grades
