Accountability of Criminal Activity by Minors

Introduction

Everything beyond the realm of legality is a crime, but not all criminals are held responsible in the same way. They cannot all be treated the same way due to the individual variations of reasons behind their actions and reactions to treatment. Minors are not and cannot be punished in the same way for a crime as an adult who is considered fully competent to make the decision to commit a crime. Even in such cases, with "brain maturation" and adolescent rebellion playing a major role in their criminal thinking, it cannot be allowed to continue and perhaps worsen over time. Minors must be held accountable for their acts, or their thought crimes will be expressed freely without the fear or understanding of their consequences.

Accountability of Criminal Activity by Minors

Criminal activity is characterized by the violation of laws in place for the safety and well-being of society at large. For the maintenance of order, it was imperative for disorder to be identified, and laws were made based on the deviance from optimal orderly societal conditions. However, things are never that black and white, and so the grey area comes with the concept of intention. "Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,” meaning “an act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty,” indicates that certain mental abnormalities can cause an individual to be incompetent in a way that thwarts their ability to understand the consequences of their actions, thus not criminally responsible (Gardner, 2020).

Moral Responsibility and Legal Competency

Based on Plato’s attribution of "an element of free choice, which makes us, and not Heaven, responsible for the good and evil in our lives," this might be taken away due to an abnormality or incomplete development (Plato, 1997). A person is morally responsible if, with knowledge of the circumstances and in the absence of external compulsion, they deliberately choose to commit a specific act. “Children, therefore, can act voluntarily, but because they do not have the capacity to premeditate their acts, they, like animals and the insane, are not to be considered morally responsible” (The Origins of the Right and Wrong Test of Criminal Responsibility and Its Subsequent Development in the United States: An Historical Survey).

Legal Perspectives

Balfour Browne defined responsibility as “knowledge that certain acts are permitted by law and that certain acts are contrary to law, and combined with this knowledge the power to appreciate and be moved by the ordinary motives which influence the actions of mankind” (Browne, 1884). Sir James Stephen opined that no act can be a crime if the person committing it was unable to know the nature and quality of their act, or that the act is wrong, or couldn’t control their own conduct due to a disease affecting their mind or defective mental power (Stephen, 1883). This argument is raised about juvenile delinquents who are, by default, legally incompetent, meaning that they are deemed incapable of making informed decisions in the eyes of the law.

Case Studies and Implications

For example, in the landmark Nirbhaya Delhi gangrape case, Akshay Thakur, Pawan Gupta, Vinay Sharma, and Mukesh Singh were sentenced to capital punishment (2013) for the rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman. One of the key accused was a juvenile, 17 years old when the crime was committed, and was sent to a reformatory for three years, the maximum penalty under the law at the time for those under the age of 18 (Bhardwaj, 2013). They had been found guilty of raping the woman in a moving bus, sexually assaulting her with an iron rod, and dumping her on the roadside bleeding, leading to her death a few days later in a Singapore hospital. The juvenile was considered a victim of his circumstances, but it was his own decisions that got him into the situation where he took an active part in a horrendous crime, which is inexcusable.

The Impact of Incarceration

Therein comes the debate of the impact of incarceration on developing children, on whom the consequences could be grave. Some literature suggests that people in prison experience mental deterioration and apathy, endure personality changes, and become uncertain about their identities (Haney, 2001). Several researchers found that people in prison may be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorders, as well as other psychiatric disorders, such as panic attacks, depression, and paranoia; subsequently, these prisoners find social adjustment and social integration difficult upon release. Other researchers found that the incarceration experience promotes a sense of helplessness, greater dependence, and introversion, and may impair one’s decision-making ability. This psychological suffering is compounded by the knowledge of violence, the witnessing of violence, or the experience of violence, all too common during incarceration.

Alternatives to Imprisonment

Imprisonment is not the only response to criminals. There are five objectives to any sentence given by the criminal justice system: Retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation, deterrence, and restoration. Imprisonment is often for the protection of the public and as a punishment for the criminal while trying to restore them as a normal member of society. However, the impact of social isolation might make it harder for them to fit in and cause the individual to return to crime (Cullen, 2005).

Understanding Juvenile Delinquency

The reasons for juvenile delinquency are myriad, and playing the blame game is more than easy. Most cases can be tracked to the delinquent being abused by parents or influenced by the wrong kind of company. A study conducted by Farrington (1986) and Tremblay and Nagin (2005) represents the relationship between age and crime, called the age-crime curve. It makes an asymmetric bell-shaped curve, meaning that the possibility of offensive activity tends to peak in the teenage years (15-19-year-olds) and declines from the early 20s. Loeber and Farrington postulated ten reasons for the sharp increase during adolescence, including brain maturation, individual differences in self-control, behavioral risk factors, social isolation, mental illness, life events, and environment.

Conclusion

Conclusively, though Frankenstein’s monster is easy to sympathize with and is clearly a victim of his circumstances and the atrocities by his own creator, there were choices that were made. The wrong choices led to immoral and illegal acts that someone has to be held accountable for. The safety of society cannot be at stake for the justification of one’s actions. The environment, upbringing, past trauma, and more might be responsible for the criminal activity displayed by a minor, but that does not mean it is acceptable. The rules of society must be upheld accurately to function optimally. Measures must be taken to prevent the possibility of expression by making an example of wrongdoers, for the awareness that no one can walk off scot-free.

References

• Bhardwaj, A. (2013). Nirbhaya case: Juvenile convict given maximum punishment of 3 years in reform home. India Today.
• Browne, B. (1884). A Treatise on the Law and Practice of the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes. Stevens and Sons.
• Cullen, F. T. (2005). The twelve people who saved rehabilitation: How the science of criminology made a difference. Criminology, 43(1), 1-42.
• Farrington, D. P. (1986). Age and crime. Crime and Justice, 7, 189-250.
• Gardner, J. (2020). The Philosophy of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
• Haney, C. (2001). The Psychological Impact of Incarceration: Implications for Post-Prison Adjustment. University of California, Santa Cruz.
• Plato. (1997). Complete Works. Hackett Publishing Company.
• Stephen, J. F. (1883). A History of the Criminal Law of England. Macmillan.
• Tremblay, R. E., & Nagin, D. S. (2005). The Developmental Origins of Physical Aggression in Humans. Science, 309(5734), 214-218.