2b. This presumption may be rebutted where it is proven, on the balance of probabilities, that having had due regard to the child’s age and level of maturity, the court determines that the person did not have a full understanding of what was involved in the commission of the offence. Isn't the inclusion of "not" errant?
Apologies, you're quite right.
I motion for the errant not to be removed by friendly amendment.
Young kids who kill need some sort of handling even if you don't call them "criminals." What will be the mechanism for the state to have some authority over them? Call them "delinquents" call them what you like, but the issue is the form of punishment isn't it?
I think we are missing the ball here perhaps.
You're quite right that this is an issue which should also be addressed, however the bill is simply a statement intended as a statement of principle that it serves little purpose to go through the procedures of charging and prosecuting the very young. What is the most adequate route for dealing with such children, that I can't say for sure, and am quite open to suggestion and discussion on.
