Straight Talk by Nimfa L. Estrellado Tito Sotto seeks to lower minimum age of criminal liability to 13. Senate President Vicente Sott...
Straight Talk
by Nimfa L. Estrellado
According to report Senate President Vicente Sotto III on Monday, September 24, filed a bill seeking to lower the age of criminal liability from the current 15 to 13 years old. In his explanatory note, Sotto said Senate Bill 2026 “is consistent with President Rodrigo Duterte’s goal to curb criminality in the country.” As early as the 2016 campaign, Duterte had sought the amendment of Republic Act 9344 or the Juvenile Justice Act of 2006 to lower the minimum age. In filing SB 2026, Sotto cited viral videos of minors committing crimes. He also cited a study by the Child Rights International Network, which states that other countries have lower minimum age of criminal liability while some federal states in the United States have set none, which “theoretically [allows] a child to be sentenced to criminal penalties at any age.”
While many teenagers are filming themselves taking drugs, doing something criminal, having sex at an early age and posting footage on internet too many still oppose to lower age of criminal liability because there have been unconfirmed reports that children are being used by criminal syndicates. Children are being used to commit crimes, especially drug trafficking.
According to UNICEF reducing the minimum age of criminal responsibility is not the solution to the use of children 15 years or below in the commission of crimes. It will violate the very essence of justice if children who have been exploited by criminal syndicates are penalized instead of the adults who had exploited them.
If the change in the Juvenile Justice System passed thousands of children will be detained in adult jails and treated no differently than hardened criminals. They will be exposed to subhuman conditions, not only to health hazards but also to physical and sexual abuse. Ironically, detention was not even called for as 70% of the children had committed petty offenses and 80% were first time offenders.
Prison is too violent for young offenders. If juvenile jurisdictions have lower age limits there should be a different place for youth offenders. How should we deal with youth offenders? Is there an alternatives to custody for young offenders? Government shouuse education to offer hope to young offenders.
Our youth justice system should not just be about punishing crime, important though that is; it should also be about reforming offenders. It should provide discipline, purpose, supervision and someone who cares – elements that have all too often been missing from these young lives.
Youth custody represents a crossroads for the young offenders within. They have arrived there through a myriad of missed opportunities, a lack of good guidance and too many bad choices. They may be violent, damaged and challenging but they should not leave without hope that there is another way to lead their lives.
It’s not too late to turn the time spent in custody into a turning point for hundreds of young people.
No comments