Listen to this story |
In recent weeks, there was a chorus of voices throughout social media, and even by the police chief, calling for the government to lower the age of criminal responsibility in Thailand from 15 to 12 years old.
This comes after the tragic events earlier this month where five teenagers, with ages ranging from 13 to 16 years old, were caught on security camera attacking “Auntie Kob” (ป้ากบ), a middle-aged woman in Sao Kaeo province. Her body was later found ditched in a lake.
This event is also followed by the shooting at Siam Paragon shopping centre last October by a mentally-ill 14 year old teenager, killing three people and injuring four more–an incident in the heart of Bangkok that shocked Thailand and raised tough questions about gun control, punishment for serious crimes, and mental illness.
In Thai law, a child younger than 15 years old cannot be held criminally liable for their acts. However, the court can impose measures for behavourial control, including formally admonishing the child and their parents or legal guardian, imposing safeguards such as a probation officer to oversee the child’s behaviour, or ordering the child to be cared for by an appropriate individual, organization, or institution.
Lowering the age of criminal responsibility, and trying children like they are adults, is not the answer. Although it can be the most popular, an answer provided in the heat of the moment, in rage, is seldom the most rational one.
We must not forget that children are not born criminals. They are made criminals through poverty, through parents who neglect them, and through people who abuse them. They are made criminals through a system that failed them. If we lower the age of criminal responsibility, we will fail them even further.
It has been shown that lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility does not reduce crime. In fact, the opposite is true. There is abundant evidence that young children’s contact with the criminal justice system correlates with long-term negative impact on their development. Most of the children who commit crimes already come from vulnerable situations. If children end up imprisoned–even in juvenile detention centres–they come into contact with more criminals, increasing the chances of re-offending. Opening up the possibility of adding even younger children into this mix would only mean aggravating the risk of these twelve or thirteen year olds to be used for criminal activities. And after being detained, they would be stigmatised and further exposed to violence and crime. Instead of adding children into our already too-crowded detention centres, we should be freeing them up. Justice has to be restorative, not punitive–even more so for our children.
Moreover, children do not have the emotional and intellectual maturity to understand the consequences of their actions, nor are they mature enough to understand the justice system. That is why, in 2007, the UN Committee on the Right of the Child concluded that 12 years old is the “absolute minimum” internationally acceptable age for criminal responsibility. They also encouraged all countries that have signed the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC), including Thailand, to increase their minimum age of criminal responsibility.
Thailand’s decision to lower it to 12 years, if taken, would be disappointingly regressive. This is not to mention Thailand’s other obligations within the CRC that require all decisions taken in the context of administering juvenile justice to be in the best interests of the child, and for the child’s development to be encouraged. These standards are not just aspirations, but concrete obligations to be tested during Thailand’s most trying times–including now.
Depending on who you ask, lowering the age of criminal responsibility may mean justice will be served for children like the mentally-ill boy who shot people at Siam Paragon, or for the teenagers who allegedly murdered the poor woman. But keep in mind: not only will changing the law fail to bring the victims back, but it will also fail to put the children who committed those acts in prison–the acts have already been committed before the laws change. And it will not outweigh the moral cost we have to pay to put those kids behind bars.
Rather, what we must do is take a long, hard look at the structural factors causing children to commit such violence. We must reform our education system to foster a nurturing and protective environment for children that educates and instils the correct values. We should look at rendering assistance to families in vulnerable situations. There has to be proper training for teachers and monitoring systems in schools to understand mental illness and to enable children to receive proper treatment–both as a preventative measure for society and for the child.
If the criminal justice system is to be reformed, it is not through lowering the age of criminal responsibility; that will not address the underlying cause. Judicial processes should be the last resort for dealing with children in conflict with the law. Instead, accountability must be held by the parents and guardians who are charged with caring for the children. Finally, we must ensure that adults that abuse, neglect, or use children to take advantage of the justice system’s more lenient sentences for them are swiftly and appropriately brought to justice.
Admittedly, these suggestions are not a universal answer to a complex problem. But the alternative is allowing more children to be victims of our criminal justice system.
As has been shown frequently in the news, Thailand’s justice system is far from perfect. But perhaps now is the time to show that, when faced with horrendous acts, we as a society forgive; when we meet tragedy, we trust in the best of our institutions to rehabilitate our children; when we are in pain, we respond with measured, rational acts of justice and not revenge.