Criminal Justice Report: Analysis of Act Section 5 Amendment Proposal

This report analyzes a proposed amendment to Section 5 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act (NSW) 1987, which concerns the age of criminal responsibility. The report focuses on increasing the age from 10 to 14 years old. The author presents a stakeholder's perspective, supporting the amendment due to the potential negative impacts of juvenile court involvement on child development. The report references Belgian law, highlighting a welfare-based approach to juvenile justice. The argument emphasizes the need for a reformative justice approach, suggesting that the amendment aligns with the goal of building a positive social construct for future generations. The report provides a concise overview of the issue, the proposed change, and the reasoning behind it, supported by academic references.

Running head: CRIMINAL JUSTICE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
1.

1CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Proposed Amendment:
Amendment of section 5 of The Children (criminal proceedings) Act(NSW) 1987
Stakeholder’s position on the amendment:
The provision of section 5 of The Children (criminal proceedings) Act(NSW) 1987
held that no child should be punished for an offence who has not attained the age of 10 years
(Vignaendra and Hazlitt 2005). The proposed amendment suggests that the offence
determining the age of a child should be increased from 10 to 14. My stakeholder is in favour
of this amendment as at this is tender age most of the children do not even understand the
consequences of an offence after committing it. Furthermore, the hurdle of juvenile court trial
and the strict decision of the court creates hindrances in the mental development of a child.
Argument:
It can be seen that children often unable to understand the reason or consequences of
an offence after committing it and punishment creates a negative impact on their upbringing.
Therefore, a juvenile offender must reach an age where he or she can understand the
consequence of their offence. In Belgium, the Youth Protection Act, 1965 does not recognize
any minimum fixed age for criminal responsibility of a child as the juvenile justice system is
based on welfare strategy, where the punishable age of a child for criminal conduct is
determined through the punishments they are supposed to get as a reflection of the
unacceptable social behavior done by them by committing the crime (Alofs and Vandenbosch
2018). Therefore, it is the responsibility of the state in order to build the social construct of
this future generation children, to take a reformative justice approach and amending this
section will take such purpose one step ahead.

2CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Reference:
Alofs, E. and Vandenbosch, A.S., 2018. Belgian Family Law Anno 2018. Int'l Surv. Fam. L.,
p.99.
Vignaendra, S. and Hazlitt, G., 2005. The Nexus Between Sentencing and Rehabilitation in
the Children's Court of NSW. Sydney: Judicial Commission of New South Wales.