Table of contentsNature and scope of the age of responsibilityOverview of stakeholder viewsSharing legal alternativesRecommendationConclusionThe minimum age of criminal responsibility in Australia is set at 10 years, making it one of the lowest MACRs in the world, covering all jurisdictions including Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia. This means that the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR) is the age at which a child aged 10 is considered criminally responsible for committing a criminal offense in a specific jurisdiction with intent, recklessness or negligence based on an act or omission. But MACR in Australia is becoming increasingly evident in policy and public circles because the current age of criminal responsibility is unacceptably low. In this report, I will explore the current circumstances following the MACR bill in increasing the minimum age of criminal responsibility and issues regarding international comparisons, children's protective rights, the limited capacity of the common law doctrine law of inability to benefit from social assistance to protect young children, child development. disorders and issues related to mental illness and cognitive impairment, criminological dilemmas related to the failure of a criminalization approach, stakeholder perspectives and the fact that the MACR Bill has exposed young people to the system of criminal justice, leaving a significant impact on their neurological problems and social development, which have been shown to result in lifelong interactions with the justice system, showing that the MACR in Australia should be raised to 14 years. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayNature and Scope of the Age of ResponsibilityAn estimated 5,513 young people aged 10 and over were subject to justice for minors on average in 2017 -18 years, and 10,638 aged 10 to 17 were temporarily under supervision during the year. This is equivalent to 21 young people per 10,000 or 1 in 486 young people every day, but why? Children involved in the criminal justice system often come from disadvantaged backgrounds and have complex needs, according to research from the Comparative Youth Penalty project, which shows that young people in the juvenile justice system have multiple needs and complex, particularly those from profoundly disadvantaged socio-economic communities. and being exposed to fragmented educational experiences marked by periods of exclusion and expulsion, which result in poor academic performance. Research shows that children who offend are subject to precarious living conditions, including homelessness and/or out-of-home care (OOHC), and have been victims of abuse, neglect, disability, mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, exposure to crime and violence, and unresolved issues. trauma that the current MACR bill does not address in terms of legal, medical and social standards, evidence and research, which are grounded in a strong consensus that children of this age should not be criminalized, thereby victimizing more disadvantaged children. Data shows that in 2009 in New South Wales, a prisoner health survey found that around half of participants had not completed year 10, one in 10 (11%) were living in accommodation precarious or had no fixed address before their current incarceration, and about 30% noted they had housing problems during the six monthspreceding their incarceration, 50% of men and 67% of women were unemployed during the six months preceding their incarceration, 30% of men and 44% of women having been unemployed for five years or more, 22% of male prisoners non-Indigenous and 27% of non-Indigenous female inmates, as well as 46% of Indigenous male inmates and 45% of Indigenous female inmates, had been placed outside of their home as children, and approximately one in five inmates (18% of men and 17% of women) have had a parent in prison. This strongly suggests that there is a strong correlation between child and youth offending and entrenched disadvantage. There appears to be a range of cognitive impairments common among youth in the juvenile justice system, including speech, language, communication disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), of the autism spectrum, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. (FASD) and acquired head injuries. 69 Research studies suggest that many First Nations children in detention have undiagnosed hearing and language disorders and that their behavior is misinterpreted as disrespect, rudeness, defiance or indifference. The link between cognitive disability and associated impairments and vulnerability to the juvenile criminal justice system has been highlighted in a prevalence study of children at the Banksia Hill Detention Center in Western Australia, conducted by the Telethon Kids Institute . According to the study, there were unprecedented levels of serious neurodevelopmental disorders among convicted youth. 89 percent of children were also shown to have at least one form of severe neurodevelopmental disability, along with 67 percent from three forms and 23 percent from five or more. FASD accounted for 36 percent of cases and brain disability, 25 percent. Of 99 children detained in Western Australia, Bower, Watkins & Mutch (2018) found that 89% had at least one serious neurodevelopmental disorder. Impairments included fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), intellectual disability, attention deficit disorder (ADD), anxiety, speech and language disorders (SLD), trauma and attachment disorders (ADD) and developmental delay. In Western Australia, the Children and Young People's Commissioner has hailed cognitive disability and associated impairments as key determinants of children's involvement in the juvenile criminal justice system. Overview of stakeholder views As the national representative body for the law, the Law Council of Australia represents the interests of the legal profession, provides advice to its constituent bodies on national issues and works to improve access to the legal profession. justice, the administration of justice and the general quality of law. Furthermore, they recognize that poor health has been associated with contact with the criminal justice system and therefore find Australia's current MACR harmful and unacceptable. In line with the recommendation of the Australian Law Council, the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be increased to at least 14 years. Countless factors are evaluated by the Legal Council in achieving this cessation, including community safety, criminogenic effects, developmental considerations, the disproportionate impact of the current age of criminal responsibility on vulnerable populations, international human rights standards, the limits of doli, incapax, alternatives. ways to approach criminal justice and the need for additional crimes. Furthermore, it does not holdtakes into account the socio-economic determinants that cause certain cohorts, such as First Nations children, children in out-of-home care and children with significant health problems, to be disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. As a result of this evidence, the Law Council finds that the best interests of the child and those of the public are more closely linked than is generally recognized. The United Nations is an intergovernmental organization whose mission is to promote international peace and stability, fostering cordial relations among nations. , achieve international cooperation and serve as a channel to barmonize the actions of nations. There are 193 UN member states, 122 have proposed 250 recommendations and 31 have implored Australia to increase the MACR during a UN Human Rights Council universal periodic review process in January. The United Nations urges Australia to raise the MACR to develop and implement a comprehensive juvenile justice policy that prohibits and facilitates the eradication of juvenile delinquency, based on the advice and assistance of the Group Inter-Agency on Juvenile Justice, which brings together representatives of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Children's Program Development (UNDP), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and to pay particular attention to the mitigation of juvenile delinquency, integration of alternative measures making it possible to respond to juvenile delinquency without capitulating to judicial procedures, and to the interpretation and implementation of all other provisions, and promote the merger, in a national and global policy of justice for juveniles, other international standards, in particular the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, in a national and comprehensive juvenile justice policy.Share legal alternativesThere are better chances of correction increasingly violent behavior through early intervention and rehabilitation in adolescents than in adult offenders in terms of repercussions; for example, the Australian Childhood Foundation (ACF) could seek a legal alternative regarding sanctions imposed on children for criminal offenses. ACF is a highly regarded facilitator that provides statewide therapeutic interventions serving children and youth in the juvenile justice system who are experiencing cognitive impairment, mental illness, or trauma. Outside of the youth justice system, a comprehensive therapeutic and support methodology for individuals and carers urgently aimed to help people by offering protection rather than causing further harm to those in need . Several modules are currently viable in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Australian Capital Territory, Northern Territory and Western Australia. He created the Center for Excellence in Therapeutic Care, a statewide conduit to help reform residential care. This form of consequence helps to prevent further criminal acts and to better understand what is right and wrong towards children. A second legal alternative is to raise the MACR to the appropriate age of 14 years. Various arguments in favor of increasing the MACR from the age of 10 have been put forward. on three arguments: its inherent irrationality, its injustice in.