KIDS, TOO, MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE

Federal Justice Minister Vic Toews' recent musings that 10- and
11-year-olds who commit crimes should be held accountable by the
criminal justice system are a common-sense step in the right direction.

By the time a child reaches the age of 10, he is old enough to know
the difference between right and wrong. And if he chooses to do
wrong, he needs to face meaningful consequences.

Ideally, those consequences ought to be meted out by mom and dad. But
today's parents find it all too easy to abdicate their parental
responsibility to discipline, leaving society at large holding the
bag. They're simply not interested in being the bad guy.

So when their out-of-control "little angels" end up on the wrong side
of the law, those lazy parents cannot then turn around and cry foul
when the criminal justice system steps in to provide the discipline
these "baby bandits" should have received at home.

Society is sick and tired of children getting away with murder -- in
some cases, literally -- and we're not going to sit back and coddle
these kids anymore.

Let's be clear, folks. We're not talking about the kid who steals a
chocolate bar from the corner store. We're talking about some serious
criminal activity.

As Toews stated, these kids "are being used by gangs and drug
couriers to do break and enters, there are other kinds of very
serious crimes, so by the time they're 12, they're already criminals."

If you think a 10-year-old isn't capable of committing a serious
crime, give your head a shake.

According to a recent story from the Edinburgh Evening News, children
as young as eight years old have been arrested by Scottish police for
committing such major crimes as drug possession, indecent assault and
house break-ins.

And one of the most horrific youth crimes in recent history was
committed by a pair of 10-year-old British boys, Jon Venables and
Robert Thompson, who kidnapped two-year-old James Bulger from a
Liverpool shopping centre, tortured him, then beat him to death.

UK newspaper The Guardian stated that Bulger "was violently attacked
with bricks, stones and a piece of metal," following which "his body
was then placed on the railway track and was cut in two by a train."

Venables and Thompson were initially sentenced to 10 years in prison
for the 1993 murder and are living under a "life licence," which
results in an immediate return to jail if they violate the terms of
their release.

Not good enough, in my opinion. Anyone evil enough to commit such a
violent and brutal crime deserves the maximum sentence the criminal
justice system can impose, no matter how young they are.

But it's important to recognize we're not necessarily talking jail time here.

In fact, Toews was extremely careful not to mention the "J" word when
he theorized, "we need to have a special way for the courts to
intervene in a positive fashion in the lives of these children in
some type of treatment program, and I think that needs to be discussed."

We need only look to Britain, where the legal age of responsibility
is 10 years old, to find a wide range of non-custodial sanctions we
could import into the Canadian context.

For instance, British youth courts can impose a referral order
allowing first-time offenders who plead guilty to enter into a
contract with a panel of local community members to make reparations
for damages and prevent further offending.

They also have the authority to impose child safety orders which
place at-risk youth under the age of 10 under the supervision of an officer.

And for those parents blaming everybody but themselves for Johnny and
Janie's illegal behaviour, the Brits can hand out parenting orders
that require the parent or guardian to attend counseling and guidance sessions.

Tough consequences? Compared with what Canadians have become
accustomed to, you bet.

But in the end, children learn by example. So perhaps the parenting
order is the best solution of all.