Time, difference and the ethics of children's criminal responsibility

Abstract

This article explains Australian legal principles attributing criminal responsibility to children, emphasising the qualities the law deems relevant and irrelevant for this purpose. Drawing on evidence from developmental psychology, the article argues that these principles result in inaccurate and unsound imputations of responsibility and irresponsibility. As well, the article explores theories of moral agency, and psychological evidence about the development of key psychosocial skills (especially empathy, and control of impulses), to inquire whether and under what circumstances it is ethically justifiable to ascribe criminal responsibility to a child offender to then justify sentences of detention. It is concluded that a consideration of qualitative differences in young offenders leads to the realisation that in nearly all cases, sentences other than detention are more ethically, theoretically and practically justifiable.