| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 108760 | 2010-04-10 09:07:00 | scary stuff | lance4k (4644) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 874954 | 2010-04-11 05:21:00 | I don't think anyone of any age should be charged with urinating in a public place. I think anytime a person of any age commits a crime with physical harm, if the victim wants to make a complaint then the person should be charged. If the victim cannot talk because the victim is a baby then it should be up to the parents whether the person is charged. the article doesn't say if he was babysitting. What if the boy just went to the house and shook the baby to harm it?. If the baby's parents wants to make a complaint howcome the police can't charge the boy? So if a random 13 year old boy goes up to a random baby in the park and shakes the baby, can't the police charge him? Have you got a brain lance4k? Should people be charged with urinating in a public place when they are 5 years old? At age 13 you should know various things but some 13 year olds know everything so we are told by you. You have gone on record as saying parents should not be charged for the sins of the child. Note also the said 13 year old was left in charge as a babysitter and therefore who is to blame? Is it the 13 yr old who was ( possibly ) not trained how to change a nappy or how to feed a baby. Was the baby screaming and/or crying due to having not being fed or sitting in its own poo or urine? I assume the 13 yr old does not even watch TV where he/she would have seen the advert where it says you DON'T ever shake a baby. Was it the parent(s) who left the defenceless child in charge of a ( possibly ) untrained person who are to blame for this outcome? Personally I don't know what actually happend or why it happend and I don't KNOW who is to blame. I do know it's useless to speculate however. If you don't like the law then get it changed. As far as I see it the law should be changed to put the Parents in there as well. But you don't think the Parents are responsible so you have already said for the actions of children. I could bring up previous threads you have made but choose not to at this time. |
lance4k (4644) | ||
| 874955 | 2010-04-11 05:32:00 | This was not a random baby in the first place. A direct quote from the link you posted:- "Police say the boy is a relative of the girl and, because of his age, will not face criminal charges if the baby survices." Now I do suspect that the article should have not mentioned "survices" and I also know that on the usual keyboard a c is not that far away from a v. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 874956 | 2010-04-11 05:36:00 | Hi Lance* Not a choice for police - the age of responsibility for all actions except manslaughter is 14. Just accept it or join the Sensible Sentencing boyos and advocate to have the age reduced. | Scouse (83) | ||
| 874957 | 2010-04-11 14:50:00 | Hi Lance* Not a choice for police - the age of responsibility for all actions except manslaughter is 14. Just accept it or join the Sensible Sentencing boyos and advocate to have the age reduced. so r u saying if a 13 year old burns someone's house down, the 13 year old won't b able to be charged with arson? |
lance4k (4644) | ||
| 874958 | 2010-04-11 19:48:00 | No but I might break his legs if it was my house, and I think people urinating in public should be charged unless it's way out in the bush if it's in town then they should. We have a big problem with freedom campers urinating and defecating around here in public places | gary67 (56) | ||
| 874959 | 2010-04-11 22:35:00 | This might tickle your fancy.... Wikipedia... In Scotland the age of responsibility is eight years, In England and Wales and Northern Ireland the age of responsibility is ten years and in the Netherlands and Canada, the age of responsibility is twelve years. Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Norway all set the age at fifteen years. In most of the US states, the age varies between states but is normally not lower than 7 years. In Belgium, it is eighteen years. As the treaty parties of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court could not agree on a minimum age for criminal responsibility, they chose to solve the question procedurally and excluded the jurisdiction of the Court for persons under 18 years. In Iran, the age for females is 9 and for males it is 15. Work that one out. |
Scouse (83) | ||
| 874960 | 2010-04-12 00:03:00 | He is too young to prosecute but he shouldnt be left alone with a kid, I think min age is 14, leave it to a Whanau conference. | prefect (6291) | ||
| 874961 | 2010-04-13 03:42:00 | age of criminal responsibility in New Zealand is ten and has been in the Crimes Act since 1961: www.ns.org.nz but the jurisdiction of the Youth Court is 14. i'm surprised this loophole isn't closed. so i think this means a person under 14could do arson, burglary, assault, rape, kidnapping, and i don't think they would go to jail. |
lance4k (4644) | ||
| 874962 | 2010-04-13 04:27:00 | age of criminal responsibility in New Zealand is ten and has been in the Crimes Act since 1961: www.ns.org.nz but the jurisdiction of the Youth Court is 14. i'm surprised this loophole isn't closed. so i think this means a person under 14could do arson, burglary, assault, rape, kidnapping, and i don't think they would go to jail. lance4k. Could you post the relevant section of the Crimes Act and all amendments thereof to that Act. I'm reasonably sure that definitions have changed in the last 39 years. Acts and rules normally have a definition and where such definition is not mentioned specifically the dictionary is supposed to be consulted as to the meaning of a certain word. Should the Justice system use the Oxford dictionary or the Webster dictionary for example? The law(s) by Lawyers in a Court are supposed to be interpreted as to what was intended by Parliament when inacted and passed into law. So who really knows as to what was intended on the day? I've seen some MP's asleep when debating is going on. The dictionaries change at various intervals as well. Back in 1961 it was not legal to be homosexual but it is now in NZ. "Gay" was a word that used to mean happy sort of but now has an entirely different meaning according to common vernacular. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 874963 | 2010-04-13 04:45:00 | He'll grow up to beat his own kids or something..... Exactly what I was thinking... |
dian77 (13936) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||