Are 14-year-olds Public Enemy No. 1?
Are 14-year-olds Public Enemy No. 1?
Editorials
September 25, 2008 07:24 AM
Is a big problem facing our country too many 14-year-olds committing serious and violent crimes and getting away with it?
That is the sentiment Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative colleagues are appealing to with the announcement they will introduce legislation that would treat those convicted of serious and violent crimes who are as young as 14, more like adults.
They would no longer be eligible for house arrest but, rather, would serve their time in our prisons.
They would no longer be afforded a protection that has been part of Canadian society for nearly 30 years — prohibiting their names from being published by the media.
And if they committed a murder, either in the first or second degree, judges would have the option of sentencing them to life in prison.
Some people will likely says it’s about time. They never liked the Young Offenders Act or the Youth Criminal Justice Act that replaced it.
It was the latter that made it even more difficult for newspapers to report on crimes committed by young people for fear we might identify the alleged perpetrator or victims. For instance, in 2006, one in 10 youth crimes in Canada occurred on school property, something you don’t get to read about because the law would typically prevent us from identifying the school, because we might identify the parties involved.
Still, this new law may go too far.
Remember what it’s like to be 14?
If your birthday is in the first half of the year, you can turn 14 while you are still in grade school. Yes, old enough to know right from wrong, but not really mature enough to understand the lifelong consequences of a criminal act.
That’s a far cry from the 17-year-old who is old enough to drive, have a job and so on. Those are the criminals to whom our government should be paying more attention — the ones who are by all measures adults and should be treated that way. But 14-year-olds?
The Conservatives run the risk of sounding like reactionaries rather than lawmakers who are dealing with a serious problem in a serious manner.
If they were talking about 17 and 16-year-olds now being more likely to get the treatment of adult court, the average voter might be more receptive.
What do you think about this issue? Share your opinion with other readers by writing a letter to the editor to boneill@yrmg.com