Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A 21 year old man given community service for repeatedly attacking a thirteen year old.Not allowed to say what he did,but we all know.How can this possibly be right? The SNP allow children of any age to change gender and 16 year olds to vote but this creature is not responsible because he is not "emotionally mature". Unless the people of Scotland object it is a national disgrace. The new First Minister is on TV defending it which sums him up" I'm not sure why you mentioned "the SNP allow children of any age to change gender". This story is about a Cis heterosexual male yet you've for some reason linked a reference to the trans community in to your post? 
And, of course this on thr face of it is very wrong | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A 21 year old man given community service for repeatedly attacking a thirteen year old.Not allowed to say what he did,but we all know.How can this possibly be right? The SNP allow children of any age to change gender and 16 year olds to vote but this creature is not responsible because he is not "emotionally mature". Unless the people of Scotland object it is a national disgrace. The new First Minister is on TV defending it which sums him up I'm not sure why you mentioned "the SNP allow children of any age to change gender". This story is about a Cis heterosexual male yet you've for some reason linked a reference to the trans community in to your post?
And, of course this on thr face of it is very wrong"I think he means that if children are considered old enough to change their gender and vote then this man being spared jail for being emotionally immature is a contradiction | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A 21 year old man given community service for repeatedly attacking a thirteen year old.Not allowed to say what he did,but we all know.How can this possibly be right? The SNP allow children of any age to change gender and 16 year olds to vote but this creature is not responsible because he is not "emotionally mature". Unless the people of Scotland object it is a national disgrace. The new First Minister is on TV defending it which sums him up I'm not sure why you mentioned "the SNP allow children of any age to change gender". This story is about a Cis heterosexual male yet you've for some reason linked a reference to the trans community in to your post?
And, of course this on thr face of it is very wrong"My point was the SNP say children are emotionally mature enough to decide that but a man is not responsible because he is under 25 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the 'man' was 17 at the same time that she was not old enough to consent. " Nice to see someone defend it.He was sentenced at 21 and walked out of court with a big grin on his face. Do you have grandchildren? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the 'man' was 17 at the same time that she was not old enough to consent. Nice to see someone defend it.He was sentenced at 21 and walked out of court with a big grin on his face. Do you have grandchildren?" Who defended it ? Why are you asking about my family status ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. " The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering " The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law" Apologists sicken me | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me" Much like when you accused Granny-Crumpet of being an apologist earlier, where have I apologised or made excuses for anyone? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me" So the fact that you don't know the difference between the age of criminal responsibility and being tried as an adult - that means that people who do know the difference are apologists? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering " How is it the SNPs fault? Do they hand out the sentences in Scotland? I thought they had an independent judiciary? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me So the fact that you don't know the difference between the age of criminal responsibility and being tried as an adult - that means that people who do know the difference are apologists?" Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering How is it the SNPs fault? Do they hand out the sentences in Scotland? I thought they had an independent judiciary?" It is not independent. It is subject to the sentencing guidelines handed down by the government, in this case the SNP. Look it up, since June 2022 the SNP have issued the guidelines these cases should not be jailed. An arbitrary decision with no base in law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me So the fact that you don't know the difference between the age of criminal responsibility and being tried as an adult - that means that people who do know the difference are apologists? Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. " It literally doesn't. Anyone under 18 is tried under the youth/juvenile judicial system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me Much like when you accused Granny-Crumpet of being an apologist earlier, where have I apologised or made excuses for anyone? " As you do not even know what an apologist or what it means (clue, it does mean someone who has apologised) I cannot engage with you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering How is it the SNPs fault? Do they hand out the sentences in Scotland? I thought they had an independent judiciary? It is not independent. It is subject to the sentencing guidelines handed down by the government, in this case the SNP. Look it up, since June 2022 the SNP have issued the guidelines these cases should not be jailed. An arbitrary decision with no base in law. " There's some pretty robust research that forms the basis for not using the prison system to incarcerate those under 18 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me So the fact that you don't know the difference between the age of criminal responsibility and being tried as an adult - that means that people who do know the difference are apologists? Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. " You're incorrect. The age of criminal responsibility means the age where someone can be charged with a crime. So in Scotland, an eleven year old who pinches crisps from a store cannot face criminal consequences. A twelve year old can. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me Much like when you accused Granny-Crumpet of being an apologist earlier, where have I apologised or made excuses for anyone? As you do not even know what an apologist or what it means (clue, it does mean someone who has apologised) I cannot engage with you. " The word apologist comes from the Greek apologia, meaning defence | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering How is it the SNPs fault? Do they hand out the sentences in Scotland? I thought they had an independent judiciary? It is not independent. It is subject to the sentencing guidelines handed down by the government, in this case the SNP. Look it up, since June 2022 the SNP have issued the guidelines these cases should not be jailed. An arbitrary decision with no base in law. There's some pretty robust research that forms the basis for not using the prison system to incarcerate those under 18" There is and I agree with it. For lesser offences, first time offenders, those showing remorse. This man attacked her repeatedly, it was a serious offence and he walked out of court with a smug grin on his face. Plus he is 21 and old enough to realise what he did was wrong. He has not even apologised to the girl for what he did. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me So the fact that you don't know the difference between the age of criminal responsibility and being tried as an adult - that means that people who do know the difference are apologists? Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You're incorrect. The age of criminal responsibility means the age where someone can be charged with a crime. So in Scotland, an eleven year old who pinches crisps from a store cannot face criminal consequences. A twelve year old can." In other words be as responsible for your crime as an adult. Do not use arguments you do not understand. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. " You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't change facts. What you've said above is not true. A child under the age of 12 cannot commit a crime in Scotland. However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. It might be worth bearing in mind that the current Scottish legislation for the age of Criminal Responsibility stems from 2019, so older cases might be dealt with differently. Always good to chat with you Harry. Sorry if I've waffled a bit too much for you. Gbat | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me Much like when you accused Granny-Crumpet of being an apologist earlier, where have I apologised or made excuses for anyone? As you do not even know what an apologist or what it means (clue, it does mean someone who has apologised) I cannot engage with you. The word apologist comes from the Greek apologia, meaning defence " As I said I cannot abide people who defend this crime and as you point out what I said means defence. Well done | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As I said I cannot abide people who defend this crime " Who has defended it Harry? Gbat | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't change facts. What you've said above is not true. A child under the age of 12 cannot commit a crime in Scotland. However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. It might be worth bearing in mind that the current Scottish legislation for the age of Criminal Responsibility stems from 2019, so older cases might be dealt with differently. Always good to chat with you Harry. Sorry if I've waffled a bit too much for you. Gbat " You are 100% right. As you said "However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. " This man was tried in the High court, I repeat THE HIGH COURT, so the legal system consider him a man. He got no jail sentence because of SNP sentencing guidelines. He was arrested as a man, tried as a man and sentenced as a child. That is wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering How is it the SNPs fault? Do they hand out the sentences in Scotland? I thought they had an independent judiciary? It is not independent. It is subject to the sentencing guidelines handed down by the government, in this case the SNP. Look it up, since June 2022 the SNP have issued the guidelines these cases should not be jailed. An arbitrary decision with no base in law. There's some pretty robust research that forms the basis for not using the prison system to incarcerate those under 18 There is and I agree with it. For lesser offences, first time offenders, those showing remorse. This man attacked her repeatedly, it was a serious offence and he walked out of court with a smug grin on his face. Plus he is 21 and old enough to realise what he did was wrong. He has not even apologised to the girl for what he did. " Sentencing is always based on the age of the defendant at the time of the crime. Not at the trial/sentencing. This fact has also impacted the sentence handed down in England to sex offenders who were tried many decades after committing crimes that occurred when they were U18. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me So the fact that you don't know the difference between the age of criminal responsibility and being tried as an adult - that means that people who do know the difference are apologists? Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You're incorrect. The age of criminal responsibility means the age where someone can be charged with a crime. So in Scotland, an eleven year old who pinches crisps from a store cannot face criminal consequences. A twelve year old can. In other words be as responsible for your crime as an adult. Do not use arguments you do not understand." I do understand what I'm saying. In Scotland, someone who is eleven years old could go on a mass murdering spree and not be held criminally liable *at all*. 12 - they can be. That's what the age of criminal responsibility means. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't change facts. What you've said above is not true. A child under the age of 12 cannot commit a crime in Scotland. However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. It might be worth bearing in mind that the current Scottish legislation for the age of Criminal Responsibility stems from 2019, so older cases might be dealt with differently. Always good to chat with you Harry. Sorry if I've waffled a bit too much for you. Gbat You are 100% right. As you said "However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. " This man was tried in the High court, I repeat THE HIGH COURT, so the legal system consider him a man. He got no jail sentence because of SNP sentencing guidelines. He was arrested as a man, tried as a man and sentenced as a child. That is wrong." "High court" is equivalent to crown court. youth courts are magistrates or sheriff's courts in Scotland a child can be tried in crown or high court, depending on severity of the offence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't change facts. What you've said above is not true. A child under the age of 12 cannot commit a crime in Scotland. However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. It might be worth bearing in mind that the current Scottish legislation for the age of Criminal Responsibility stems from 2019, so older cases might be dealt with differently. Always good to chat with you Harry. Sorry if I've waffled a bit too much for you. Gbat You are 100% right. As you said "However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. " This man was tried in the High court, I repeat THE HIGH COURT, so the legal system consider him a man. He got no jail sentence because of SNP sentencing guidelines. He was arrested as a man, tried as a man and sentenced as a child. That is wrong." Guidelines are not rules though. Ultimately, it's the judge who decided on the sentence. I'm not saying I agree with it, by the way. There are guidelines for sentencing of all kinds of crime. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't change facts. What you've said above is not true. A child under the age of 12 cannot commit a crime in Scotland. However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. It might be worth bearing in mind that the current Scottish legislation for the age of Criminal Responsibility stems from 2019, so older cases might be dealt with differently. Always good to chat with you Harry. Sorry if I've waffled a bit too much for you. Gbat You are 100% right. As you said "However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. " This man was tried in the High court, I repeat THE HIGH COURT, so the legal system consider him a man. He got no jail sentence because of SNP sentencing guidelines. He was arrested as a man, tried as a man and sentenced as a child. That is wrong." The name of the court doesn't have anything to do with anything | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why is it I think the thread was always destined to end in sniping? " I think we both know the answer to that. Some people could start an argument in an empty room! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't change facts. What you've said above is not true. A child under the age of 12 cannot commit a crime in Scotland. However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. It might be worth bearing in mind that the current Scottish legislation for the age of Criminal Responsibility stems from 2019, so older cases might be dealt with differently. Always good to chat with you Harry. Sorry if I've waffled a bit too much for you. Gbat You are 100% right. As you said "However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. " This man was tried in the High court, I repeat THE HIGH COURT, so the legal system consider him a man. He got no jail sentence because of SNP sentencing guidelines. He was arrested as a man, tried as a man and sentenced as a child. That is wrong. The name of the court doesn't have anything to do with anything "In theory it does because the high court overall the lower ones also if a person had logged an appeal that is the last place to challenge it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why is it I think the thread was always destined to end in sniping? I think we both know the answer to that. Some people could start an argument in an empty room!" With a plastic bag  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. " But by law in Scotland both were Minor still an offence regardless of being an adult age their is no defense | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't change facts. What you've said above is not true. A child under the age of 12 cannot commit a crime in Scotland. However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. It might be worth bearing in mind that the current Scottish legislation for the age of Criminal Responsibility stems from 2019, so older cases might be dealt with differently. Always good to chat with you Harry. Sorry if I've waffled a bit too much for you. Gbat You are 100% right. As you said "However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. " This man was tried in the High court, I repeat THE HIGH COURT, so the legal system consider him a man. He got no jail sentence because of SNP sentencing guidelines. He was arrested as a man, tried as a man and sentenced as a child. That is wrong. The name of the court doesn't have anything to do with anything
In theory it does because the high court overall the lower ones also if a person had logged an appeal that is the last place to challenge it "Err... That might be true in Australia? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me So the fact that you don't know the difference between the age of criminal responsibility and being tried as an adult - that means that people who do know the difference are apologists? Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You're incorrect. The age of criminal responsibility means the age where someone can be charged with a crime. So in Scotland, an eleven year old who pinches crisps from a store cannot face criminal consequences. A twelve year old can." It depends upon the nature of the offence and how serious the seriousness has to be taken into consideration and the victim age vulnerability and other factors when charged and sentenced | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't change facts. What you've said above is not true. A child under the age of 12 cannot commit a crime in Scotland. However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. It might be worth bearing in mind that the current Scottish legislation for the age of Criminal Responsibility stems from 2019, so older cases might be dealt with differently. Always good to chat with you Harry. Sorry if I've waffled a bit too much for you. Gbat You are 100% right. As you said "However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. " This man was tried in the High court, I repeat THE HIGH COURT, so the legal system consider him a man. He got no jail sentence because of SNP sentencing guidelines. He was arrested as a man, tried as a man and sentenced as a child. That is wrong. The name of the court doesn't have anything to do with anything
In theory it does because the high court overall the lower ones also if a person had logged an appeal that is the last place to challenge it
Err... That might be true in Australia?"Nope in Scotland in fact I've watched few documentaries on YouTube when nothing else to watch on live cases and stuff | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me So the fact that you don't know the difference between the age of criminal responsibility and being tried as an adult - that means that people who do know the difference are apologists? Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You're incorrect. The age of criminal responsibility means the age where someone can be charged with a crime. So in Scotland, an eleven year old who pinches crisps from a store cannot face criminal consequences. A twelve year old can. It depends upon the nature of the offence and how serious the seriousness has to be taken into consideration and the victim age vulnerability and other factors when charged and sentenced " No. It doesn't. https://www.gov.scot/policies/youth-justice/raising-age-criminal-responsibility/ "Children under the age of 12 can no longer be charged or arrested." An eleven year is *exempt* from criminal prosecution. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't change facts. What you've said above is not true. A child under the age of 12 cannot commit a crime in Scotland. However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. It might be worth bearing in mind that the current Scottish legislation for the age of Criminal Responsibility stems from 2019, so older cases might be dealt with differently. Always good to chat with you Harry. Sorry if I've waffled a bit too much for you. Gbat You are 100% right. As you said "However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. " This man was tried in the High court, I repeat THE HIGH COURT, so the legal system consider him a man. He got no jail sentence because of SNP sentencing guidelines. He was arrested as a man, tried as a man and sentenced as a child. That is wrong. The name of the court doesn't have anything to do with anything
In theory it does because the high court overall the lower ones also if a person had logged an appeal that is the last place to challenge it
Err... That might be true in Australia?
Nope in Scotland in fact I've watched few documentaries on YouTube when nothing else to watch on live cases and stuff "Fair enough, that one is my mistake - the High Court *also* serves as the criminal court of appeal and there is no further appeal in Scotland. Every day is a school day. (In Australia, the High Court is the equivalent of the UK Supreme Court) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me So the fact that you don't know the difference between the age of criminal responsibility and being tried as an adult - that means that people who do know the difference are apologists? Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You're incorrect. The age of criminal responsibility means the age where someone can be charged with a crime. So in Scotland, an eleven year old who pinches crisps from a store cannot face criminal consequences. A twelve year old can. It depends upon the nature of the offence and how serious the seriousness has to be taken into consideration and the victim age vulnerability and other factors when charged and sentenced No. It doesn't. https://www.gov.scot/policies/youth-justice/raising-age-criminal-responsibility/ "Children under the age of 12 can no longer be charged or arrested." An eleven year is *exempt* from criminal prosecution." I doubt that the court of Human rights would agree on this same as the one who got community service will be going to prison guaranteed maybe 4/7 years | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me So the fact that you don't know the difference between the age of criminal responsibility and being tried as an adult - that means that people who do know the difference are apologists? Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You're incorrect. The age of criminal responsibility means the age where someone can be charged with a crime. So in Scotland, an eleven year old who pinches crisps from a store cannot face criminal consequences. A twelve year old can. It depends upon the nature of the offence and how serious the seriousness has to be taken into consideration and the victim age vulnerability and other factors when charged and sentenced No. It doesn't. https://www.gov.scot/policies/youth-justice/raising-age-criminal-responsibility/ "Children under the age of 12 can no longer be charged or arrested." An eleven year is *exempt* from criminal prosecution. I doubt that the court of Human rights would agree on this same as the one who got community service will be going to prison guaranteed maybe 4/7 years " Read the website for yourself. You'll see the sentence I quoted. The age of criminal responsibility is the age at which someone can be charged with a crime. It's different in different countries - so, it's 10 in England - but I think we'd all agree that even the shittiest three year old cannot be held accountable for their actions under the criminal law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't change facts. What you've said above is not true. A child under the age of 12 cannot commit a crime in Scotland. However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. It might be worth bearing in mind that the current Scottish legislation for the age of Criminal Responsibility stems from 2019, so older cases might be dealt with differently. Always good to chat with you Harry. Sorry if I've waffled a bit too much for you. Gbat You are 100% right. As you said "However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. " This man was tried in the High court, I repeat THE HIGH COURT, so the legal system consider him a man. He got no jail sentence because of SNP sentencing guidelines. He was arrested as a man, tried as a man and sentenced as a child. That is wrong. The name of the court doesn't have anything to do with anything
In theory it does because the high court overall the lower ones also if a person had logged an appeal that is the last place to challenge it
Err... That might be true in Australia?
Nope in Scotland in fact I've watched few documentaries on YouTube when nothing else to watch on live cases and stuff
Fair enough, that one is my mistake - the High Court *also* serves as the criminal court of appeal and there is no further appeal in Scotland.
Every day is a school day. (In Australia, the High Court is the equivalent of the UK Supreme Court)"You have the high court, supreme court and court of Human rights one outweigh the other in one way or another | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't change facts. What you've said above is not true. A child under the age of 12 cannot commit a crime in Scotland. However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. It might be worth bearing in mind that the current Scottish legislation for the age of Criminal Responsibility stems from 2019, so older cases might be dealt with differently. Always good to chat with you Harry. Sorry if I've waffled a bit too much for you. Gbat You are 100% right. As you said "However a child that has attained the age of criminal responsibility still doesn't go to an adult court. Scotland has a system of Children's Hearings. " This man was tried in the High court, I repeat THE HIGH COURT, so the legal system consider him a man. He got no jail sentence because of SNP sentencing guidelines. He was arrested as a man, tried as a man and sentenced as a child. That is wrong. The name of the court doesn't have anything to do with anything
In theory it does because the high court overall the lower ones also if a person had logged an appeal that is the last place to challenge it
Err... That might be true in Australia?
Nope in Scotland in fact I've watched few documentaries on YouTube when nothing else to watch on live cases and stuff
Fair enough, that one is my mistake - the High Court *also* serves as the criminal court of appeal and there is no further appeal in Scotland.
Every day is a school day. (In Australia, the High Court is the equivalent of the UK Supreme Court)
You have the high court, supreme court and court of Human rights one outweigh the other in one way or another "I mean, yeah, ok, sort of. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me So the fact that you don't know the difference between the age of criminal responsibility and being tried as an adult - that means that people who do know the difference are apologists? Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You're incorrect. The age of criminal responsibility means the age where someone can be charged with a crime. So in Scotland, an eleven year old who pinches crisps from a store cannot face criminal consequences. A twelve year old can. It depends upon the nature of the offence and how serious the seriousness has to be taken into consideration and the victim age vulnerability and other factors when charged and sentenced No. It doesn't. https://www.gov.scot/policies/youth-justice/raising-age-criminal-responsibility/ "Children under the age of 12 can no longer be charged or arrested." An eleven year is *exempt* from criminal prosecution. I doubt that the court of Human rights would agree on this same as the one who got community service will be going to prison guaranteed maybe 4/7 years Read the website for yourself. You'll see the sentence I quoted. The age of criminal responsibility is the age at which someone can be charged with a crime. It's different in different countries - so, it's 10 in England - but I think we'd all agree that even the shittiest three year old cannot be held accountable for their actions under the criminal law." I'll stick to what is about to happen thanks laws get amended on a daily basis hence Archibald law Bible | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me So the fact that you don't know the difference between the age of criminal responsibility and being tried as an adult - that means that people who do know the difference are apologists? Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You're incorrect. The age of criminal responsibility means the age where someone can be charged with a crime. So in Scotland, an eleven year old who pinches crisps from a store cannot face criminal consequences. A twelve year old can. It depends upon the nature of the offence and how serious the seriousness has to be taken into consideration and the victim age vulnerability and other factors when charged and sentenced No. It doesn't. https://www.gov.scot/policies/youth-justice/raising-age-criminal-responsibility/ "Children under the age of 12 can no longer be charged or arrested." An eleven year is *exempt* from criminal prosecution. I doubt that the court of Human rights would agree on this same as the one who got community service will be going to prison guaranteed maybe 4/7 years Read the website for yourself. You'll see the sentence I quoted. The age of criminal responsibility is the age at which someone can be charged with a crime. It's different in different countries - so, it's 10 in England - but I think we'd all agree that even the shittiest three year old cannot be held accountable for their actions under the criminal law. I'll stick to what is about to happen thanks laws get amended on a daily basis hence Archibald law Bible " I can only speak to what the law is. You said that it can't be right that an eleven year old is exempt from criminal prosecution. At this moment, that is the law. Whatever you believe might happen in the future, right now, an eleven year old mass murderer is exempt from criminal prosecution in Scotland. They cannot be arrested or prosecuted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me So the fact that you don't know the difference between the age of criminal responsibility and being tried as an adult - that means that people who do know the difference are apologists? Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You're incorrect. The age of criminal responsibility means the age where someone can be charged with a crime. So in Scotland, an eleven year old who pinches crisps from a store cannot face criminal consequences. A twelve year old can. It depends upon the nature of the offence and how serious the seriousness has to be taken into consideration and the victim age vulnerability and other factors when charged and sentenced No. It doesn't. https://www.gov.scot/policies/youth-justice/raising-age-criminal-responsibility/ "Children under the age of 12 can no longer be charged or arrested." An eleven year is *exempt* from criminal prosecution. I doubt that the court of Human rights would agree on this same as the one who got community service will be going to prison guaranteed maybe 4/7 years Read the website for yourself. You'll see the sentence I quoted. The age of criminal responsibility is the age at which someone can be charged with a crime. It's different in different countries - so, it's 10 in England - but I think we'd all agree that even the shittiest three year old cannot be held accountable for their actions under the criminal law. I'll stick to what is about to happen thanks laws get amended on a daily basis hence Archibald law Bible I can only speak to what the law is. You said that it can't be right that an eleven year old is exempt from criminal prosecution. At this moment, that is the law. Whatever you believe might happen in the future, right now, an eleven year old mass murderer is exempt from criminal prosecution in Scotland. They cannot be arrested or prosecuted." What about if the 17 year old was up for attempt murder would be get a sentence or a shopping voucher | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People under the age of 25 are sentenced differently due to their ‘level of maturity’. It is recognised by the court that an adult brain is not fully mature until the age of 25. It is shocking when you read the news and see some of the stuff that happens in the courts." Yes. Voting and medical care are not the same as criminal liability. In the same way as bathing without parental supervision and driving are not the same. Rights and responsibilities develop as a child matures into adulthood. And we now increasingly recognise that neurological development isn't done at 18. Is Scotland right? Is any country right? It's a value judgement, not an absolute. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me So the fact that you don't know the difference between the age of criminal responsibility and being tried as an adult - that means that people who do know the difference are apologists? Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You're incorrect. The age of criminal responsibility means the age where someone can be charged with a crime. So in Scotland, an eleven year old who pinches crisps from a store cannot face criminal consequences. A twelve year old can. It depends upon the nature of the offence and how serious the seriousness has to be taken into consideration and the victim age vulnerability and other factors when charged and sentenced No. It doesn't. https://www.gov.scot/policies/youth-justice/raising-age-criminal-responsibility/ "Children under the age of 12 can no longer be charged or arrested." An eleven year is *exempt* from criminal prosecution. I doubt that the court of Human rights would agree on this same as the one who got community service will be going to prison guaranteed maybe 4/7 years Read the website for yourself. You'll see the sentence I quoted. The age of criminal responsibility is the age at which someone can be charged with a crime. It's different in different countries - so, it's 10 in England - but I think we'd all agree that even the shittiest three year old cannot be held accountable for their actions under the criminal law. I'll stick to what is about to happen thanks laws get amended on a daily basis hence Archibald law Bible I can only speak to what the law is. You said that it can't be right that an eleven year old is exempt from criminal prosecution. At this moment, that is the law. Whatever you believe might happen in the future, right now, an eleven year old mass murderer is exempt from criminal prosecution in Scotland. They cannot be arrested or prosecuted. What about if the 17 year old was up for attempt murder would be get a sentence or a shopping voucher " As 17 is above the age of criminal responsibility, a 17 year old suspected of attempted murder would be subject to criminal liability. That does not mean being charged as an adult. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People under the age of 25 are sentenced differently due to their ‘level of maturity’. It is recognised by the court that an adult brain is not fully mature until the age of 25. It is shocking when you read the news and see some of the stuff that happens in the courts." I wouldn't agree with you I watch a lot of criminology based around Scotland and many have been given a lengthy sentence from the age of 16,17,21 sentence roughly 21 years | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me So the fact that you don't know the difference between the age of criminal responsibility and being tried as an adult - that means that people who do know the difference are apologists? Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You're incorrect. The age of criminal responsibility means the age where someone can be charged with a crime. So in Scotland, an eleven year old who pinches crisps from a store cannot face criminal consequences. A twelve year old can. It depends upon the nature of the offence and how serious the seriousness has to be taken into consideration and the victim age vulnerability and other factors when charged and sentenced No. It doesn't. https://www.gov.scot/policies/youth-justice/raising-age-criminal-responsibility/ "Children under the age of 12 can no longer be charged or arrested." An eleven year is *exempt* from criminal prosecution. I doubt that the court of Human rights would agree on this same as the one who got community service will be going to prison guaranteed maybe 4/7 years Read the website for yourself. You'll see the sentence I quoted. The age of criminal responsibility is the age at which someone can be charged with a crime. It's different in different countries - so, it's 10 in England - but I think we'd all agree that even the shittiest three year old cannot be held accountable for their actions under the criminal law. I'll stick to what is about to happen thanks laws get amended on a daily basis hence Archibald law Bible I can only speak to what the law is. You said that it can't be right that an eleven year old is exempt from criminal prosecution. At this moment, that is the law. Whatever you believe might happen in the future, right now, an eleven year old mass murderer is exempt from criminal prosecution in Scotland. They cannot be arrested or prosecuted. What about if the 17 year old was up for attempt murder would be get a sentence or a shopping voucher As 17 is above the age of criminal responsibility, a 17 year old suspected of attempted murder would be subject to criminal liability. That does not mean being charged as an adult." Read the case for Robbie McIntosh he was 16 attempt murder then at a later stage was released only to do it again and serving a life sentence all happened in Dundee | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People under the age of 25 are sentenced differently due to their ‘level of maturity’. It is recognised by the court that an adult brain is not fully mature until the age of 25. It is shocking when you read the news and see some of the stuff that happens in the courts." Even In English courts its put as you should know or should've known regardless if you are 20,30,40,50,60,70,80,99 of age because mental health laws if any of them has any or not aware of | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me So the fact that you don't know the difference between the age of criminal responsibility and being tried as an adult - that means that people who do know the difference are apologists? Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You're incorrect. The age of criminal responsibility means the age where someone can be charged with a crime. So in Scotland, an eleven year old who pinches crisps from a store cannot face criminal consequences. A twelve year old can. It depends upon the nature of the offence and how serious the seriousness has to be taken into consideration and the victim age vulnerability and other factors when charged and sentenced No. It doesn't. https://www.gov.scot/policies/youth-justice/raising-age-criminal-responsibility/ "Children under the age of 12 can no longer be charged or arrested." An eleven year is *exempt* from criminal prosecution. I doubt that the court of Human rights would agree on this same as the one who got community service will be going to prison guaranteed maybe 4/7 years Read the website for yourself. You'll see the sentence I quoted. The age of criminal responsibility is the age at which someone can be charged with a crime. It's different in different countries - so, it's 10 in England - but I think we'd all agree that even the shittiest three year old cannot be held accountable for their actions under the criminal law. I'll stick to what is about to happen thanks laws get amended on a daily basis hence Archibald law Bible I can only speak to what the law is. You said that it can't be right that an eleven year old is exempt from criminal prosecution. At this moment, that is the law. Whatever you believe might happen in the future, right now, an eleven year old mass murderer is exempt from criminal prosecution in Scotland. They cannot be arrested or prosecuted. What about if the 17 year old was up for attempt murder would be get a sentence or a shopping voucher As 17 is above the age of criminal responsibility, a 17 year old suspected of attempted murder would be subject to criminal liability. That does not mean being charged as an adult. Read the case for Robbie McIntosh he was 16 attempt murder then at a later stage was released only to do it again and serving a life sentence all happened in Dundee " If he was released, that implies that he was subject to criminal liability. Which doesn't refute what I'm saying at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me So the fact that you don't know the difference between the age of criminal responsibility and being tried as an adult - that means that people who do know the difference are apologists? Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You're incorrect. The age of criminal responsibility means the age where someone can be charged with a crime. So in Scotland, an eleven year old who pinches crisps from a store cannot face criminal consequences. A twelve year old can. It depends upon the nature of the offence and how serious the seriousness has to be taken into consideration and the victim age vulnerability and other factors when charged and sentenced No. It doesn't. https://www.gov.scot/policies/youth-justice/raising-age-criminal-responsibility/ "Children under the age of 12 can no longer be charged or arrested." An eleven year is *exempt* from criminal prosecution. I doubt that the court of Human rights would agree on this same as the one who got community service will be going to prison guaranteed maybe 4/7 years Read the website for yourself. You'll see the sentence I quoted. The age of criminal responsibility is the age at which someone can be charged with a crime. It's different in different countries - so, it's 10 in England - but I think we'd all agree that even the shittiest three year old cannot be held accountable for their actions under the criminal law. I'll stick to what is about to happen thanks laws get amended on a daily basis hence Archibald law Bible I can only speak to what the law is. You said that it can't be right that an eleven year old is exempt from criminal prosecution. At this moment, that is the law. Whatever you believe might happen in the future, right now, an eleven year old mass murderer is exempt from criminal prosecution in Scotland. They cannot be arrested or prosecuted. What about if the 17 year old was up for attempt murder would be get a sentence or a shopping voucher As 17 is above the age of criminal responsibility, a 17 year old suspected of attempted murder would be subject to criminal liability. That does not mean being charged as an adult. Read the case for Robbie McIntosh he was 16 attempt murder then at a later stage was released only to do it again and serving a life sentence all happened in Dundee If he was released, that implies that he was subject to criminal liability. Which doesn't refute what I'm saying at all." 
First sentence at age 16 received 21 years for attempt murder and I think year 2018 was released to commit another attempt murder but given life this time the seriousness is an important factor to try to protect society as well | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me So the fact that you don't know the difference between the age of criminal responsibility and being tried as an adult - that means that people who do know the difference are apologists? Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You're incorrect. The age of criminal responsibility means the age where someone can be charged with a crime. So in Scotland, an eleven year old who pinches crisps from a store cannot face criminal consequences. A twelve year old can. It depends upon the nature of the offence and how serious the seriousness has to be taken into consideration and the victim age vulnerability and other factors when charged and sentenced No. It doesn't. https://www.gov.scot/policies/youth-justice/raising-age-criminal-responsibility/ "Children under the age of 12 can no longer be charged or arrested." An eleven year is *exempt* from criminal prosecution. I doubt that the court of Human rights would agree on this same as the one who got community service will be going to prison guaranteed maybe 4/7 years Read the website for yourself. You'll see the sentence I quoted. The age of criminal responsibility is the age at which someone can be charged with a crime. It's different in different countries - so, it's 10 in England - but I think we'd all agree that even the shittiest three year old cannot be held accountable for their actions under the criminal law. I'll stick to what is about to happen thanks laws get amended on a daily basis hence Archibald law Bible I can only speak to what the law is. You said that it can't be right that an eleven year old is exempt from criminal prosecution. At this moment, that is the law. Whatever you believe might happen in the future, right now, an eleven year old mass murderer is exempt from criminal prosecution in Scotland. They cannot be arrested or prosecuted. What about if the 17 year old was up for attempt murder would be get a sentence or a shopping voucher As 17 is above the age of criminal responsibility, a 17 year old suspected of attempted murder would be subject to criminal liability. That does not mean being charged as an adult. Read the case for Robbie McIntosh he was 16 attempt murder then at a later stage was released only to do it again and serving a life sentence all happened in Dundee If he was released, that implies that he was subject to criminal liability. Which doesn't refute what I'm saying at all.
First sentence at age 16 received 21 years for attempt murder and I think year 2018 was released to commit another attempt murder but given life this time the seriousness is an important factor to try to protect society as well "Yes, sentencing involves balancing a number of factors  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me So the fact that you don't know the difference between the age of criminal responsibility and being tried as an adult - that means that people who do know the difference are apologists? Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You're incorrect. The age of criminal responsibility means the age where someone can be charged with a crime. So in Scotland, an eleven year old who pinches crisps from a store cannot face criminal consequences. A twelve year old can. It depends upon the nature of the offence and how serious the seriousness has to be taken into consideration and the victim age vulnerability and other factors when charged and sentenced No. It doesn't. https://www.gov.scot/policies/youth-justice/raising-age-criminal-responsibility/ "Children under the age of 12 can no longer be charged or arrested." An eleven year is *exempt* from criminal prosecution. I doubt that the court of Human rights would agree on this same as the one who got community service will be going to prison guaranteed maybe 4/7 years Read the website for yourself. You'll see the sentence I quoted. The age of criminal responsibility is the age at which someone can be charged with a crime. It's different in different countries - so, it's 10 in England - but I think we'd all agree that even the shittiest three year old cannot be held accountable for their actions under the criminal law. I'll stick to what is about to happen thanks laws get amended on a daily basis hence Archibald law Bible I can only speak to what the law is. You said that it can't be right that an eleven year old is exempt from criminal prosecution. At this moment, that is the law. Whatever you believe might happen in the future, right now, an eleven year old mass murderer is exempt from criminal prosecution in Scotland. They cannot be arrested or prosecuted. What about if the 17 year old was up for attempt murder would be get a sentence or a shopping voucher As 17 is above the age of criminal responsibility, a 17 year old suspected of attempted murder would be subject to criminal liability. That does not mean being charged as an adult. Read the case for Robbie McIntosh he was 16 attempt murder then at a later stage was released only to do it again and serving a life sentence all happened in Dundee If he was released, that implies that he was subject to criminal liability. Which doesn't refute what I'm saying at all.
First sentence at age 16 received 21 years for attempt murder and I think year 2018 was released to commit another attempt murder but given life this time the seriousness is an important factor to try to protect society as well
Yes, sentencing involves balancing a number of factors "Which are supposed to be getting tougher due to past experience of others as it has failed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He was 17 at the time, so I guess they have to abide by whatever rules there are for "children?" as he wasn't an adult. If it happened sooner I guess he would have gone to a young offenders institute. I don't know enough about the law, that's just my guess. The age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12 so there is no legal reason not to jail him.It is just another attempt by the SNP at social engineering The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as being tried as a minor. A 17 year old facing similar changes would also be treated differently to a 21 year old in an English court of law Apologists sicken me So the fact that you don't know the difference between the age of criminal responsibility and being tried as an adult - that means that people who do know the difference are apologists? Apologist, where did I mention being tried as an adult? But as you bring it up I will explain it to you. The age of criminal responsibility means exactly that, being as responsible for your crime as an adult. You're incorrect. The age of criminal responsibility means the age where someone can be charged with a crime. So in Scotland, an eleven year old who pinches crisps from a store cannot face criminal consequences. A twelve year old can. It depends upon the nature of the offence and how serious the seriousness has to be taken into consideration and the victim age vulnerability and other factors when charged and sentenced No. It doesn't. https://www.gov.scot/policies/youth-justice/raising-age-criminal-responsibility/ "Children under the age of 12 can no longer be charged or arrested." An eleven year is *exempt* from criminal prosecution. I doubt that the court of Human rights would agree on this same as the one who got community service will be going to prison guaranteed maybe 4/7 years Read the website for yourself. You'll see the sentence I quoted. The age of criminal responsibility is the age at which someone can be charged with a crime. It's different in different countries - so, it's 10 in England - but I think we'd all agree that even the shittiest three year old cannot be held accountable for their actions under the criminal law. I'll stick to what is about to happen thanks laws get amended on a daily basis hence Archibald law Bible I can only speak to what the law is. You said that it can't be right that an eleven year old is exempt from criminal prosecution. At this moment, that is the law. Whatever you believe might happen in the future, right now, an eleven year old mass murderer is exempt from criminal prosecution in Scotland. They cannot be arrested or prosecuted. What about if the 17 year old was up for attempt murder would be get a sentence or a shopping voucher As 17 is above the age of criminal responsibility, a 17 year old suspected of attempted murder would be subject to criminal liability. That does not mean being charged as an adult. Read the case for Robbie McIntosh he was 16 attempt murder then at a later stage was released only to do it again and serving a life sentence all happened in Dundee If he was released, that implies that he was subject to criminal liability. Which doesn't refute what I'm saying at all.
First sentence at age 16 received 21 years for attempt murder and I think year 2018 was released to commit another attempt murder but given life this time the seriousness is an important factor to try to protect society as well
Yes, sentencing involves balancing a number of factors
Which are supposed to be getting tougher due to past experience of others as it has failed "I mean, if you think that's productive, you do you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OP your beef seems to be more with the SNP than the crime itself!" Weird how that works | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
