COURT WRONG PLACE FOR 10-YEAR-OLDS

Justice Minister Vic Toews is musing about lowering the age of
criminal responsibility to ten years of age from 12 years so younger
children can be brought into court.

Toews says the move would accomplish two goals -- help deter younger
children from committing crimes and also allow the courts to order
treatment programs for children as young as ten. It's often too late
to rehabilitate troubled children who may, by 12, already be
converted to a life of crime, says Toews.

In a letter in today's Journal, Toews says it is not his intention to
put ten-year-old children in jail but rather to find a way to order
them into treatment programs.

That's a welcome clarification.

Children engaging in anti-social behaviour as young as ten certainly
need help, but putting them in jail is not the appropriate response.

While 10-year-olds may have some understanding of what's right and
wrong, their cognitive development is limited and doesn't provide a
full understanding of crime and its consequences.

Labelling these children criminals and putting them in jail would not
help them get back on the straight and narrow.

But hauling them into court to order them into treatment programs
isn't an ideal solution either.

If we have to criminalize such young children to get them the
treatment they need, then society is falling down on social support
for troubled children.

Toews's impulse for earlier intervention for troubled children has
merit. But the court system is not the right place.

These children and their families need the expertise of child welfare
workers and community agencies to identify risky behaviours and
appropriate support.

Crime prevention for young children comes by doing the complex work
of supporting families under stress, alleviating poverty and building
healthy communities, says Tami Bereska, sociologist at Grant MacEwan College.

Toews says that child welfare systems are "letting criminal conduct
continue" with young children, for instance, used by gangs to commit
serious crimes. By the time they are 12 and in court, rehabilitation
is very difficult.

Child welfare systems are stretched to provide counselling and social
intervention. Provincial corrections systems aren't equipped to
provide those services.

It's also highly dubious whether the threat of a court appearance
would be any kind of deterrent on a 10-year-old out to break some
windows or deliver drugs for a gang. How could they even be aware of
the possibility?

Moreover, children so young have limited understanding of the
consequences of their actions, says University of Alberta law
professor Sanjeev Anand.

So deterrence -- which doesn't work all that well for adult
lawbreakers -- has less relevance at this age.

Bereska also points out a contradiction in the Conservative approach.
Toews advocates children as young as ten are old enough to be
criminally responsible.

But at the same time, Toews is raising the age of sexual consent to
16 from 14 because 14-year-olds are too young to have an
understanding of a proper sexual relation.

Given that youth crime, including violent crime, is down, these days
(by six per cent according to StatsCan), it's tempting to ask what
problem Toews is trying to remedy.

This discussion has echoes of the late 1990s when the Reform party,
supported by provinces like Alberta, lobbied to lower the age of
criminal responsibility to ten years, especially in cases of serious,
violent crime.

Alberta would still like to have that discussion, says David Dear,
spokesman for Alberta Justice.

It would also like to see tougher sentencing for youth crime, which
is now guided by the principles of rehabilitation, not punishment.

But before that begins, governments should provide some evidence of
the problem.

Is there a growing crime wave among Grade 5 and 6 students?