commerce (legal)

court assessment

1. What is the strongest evidence for your argument?

• Brain not fully developed
  
  

• AIHW: 90% reoffend
  
  

• AMA & UN support reform
  
  

The strongest evidence is the scientific and medical research showing that children under 14 do not have fully developed brains, especially in areas responsible for decision-making, impulse control, and understanding consequences. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) also reports up to 90% of young offenders reoffend, proving the current system doesn't work.

2. How would this law affect young people in your school?

• Less criminalisation
  
  

• More support in school
  
  

Kids stay in education

It would protect students from being criminalised for poor decisions made while still growing and learning. Instead of being punished through the court system, they could receive counselling, school support, or community programs to help them stay on track.

3. Why is your proposal better than the current law?

Focus on help, not harm

• Breaks cycle of crime
  
  

• Matches global standards
  
  

Because it focuses on rehabilitation, not punishment. Kids need help, not jail. The current law creates a cycle of reoffending, but raising the age would reduce this harm and align Australia with global best practices.

What is a common objection to your view, and how would you respond?

• "What about serious crimes?"
  
  

• Jail doesn’t prevent reoffending
  
  

• Community-based programs work better
  
  

Some people argue that serious crimes by young people must be punished. But evidence shows prison doesn't stop crime — it makes it worse. Programs like youth counselling, mediation, and education have better long-term results.

 Are there any risks or downsides to your proposal?

• Public safety concerns
  
  

• Need support systems
  
  

• Long-term benefits > short-term risks
  
  

Some people may fear a short-term rise in youth crime if police lose powers. Also, the community may worry about safety. But with the right support systems, these risks are low and outweighed by the long-term benefits.

Can you name a real case that supports your position and explain how it is relevant?

• RP v The Queen
  
  

• Hard to prove child understands
  
  

Shows law is unfair for young kids

Yes: RP v The Queen [2016] HCA 53
In this High Court case, a 12-year-old child with cognitive impairments was charged with a serious crime. The Court said prosecutors must prove the child knew the act was seriously wrong, showing how hard it is to apply criminal responsibility fairly at this age.

What would a fair or just outcome look like in this situation?

• No jail for kids
  
  

• Support not punishment
  
  

• Accountability with care
  
  

A fair outcome would be a law that keeps kids out of jail, supports their development, and holds them accountable in age-appropriate, rehabilitative ways, like counselling or youth conferencing.

How would your change impact society as a whole?

• Lower crime
  
  

• Better mental health
  
  

Stronger communities

It would reduce long-term crime rates, save taxpayer money, improve mental health outcomes, and build stronger communities by helping kids rather than punishing them early in life.

If this law were implemented tomorrow, who would benefit most and who might be disadvantaged?

• Children aged 10–13 (especially Indigenous kids)
  
  

• Families and schools
  
  

Society in the long run

• Police or victims expecting quick punishment
  
  

• Communities that fear rising youth crime (but this can be addressed with education and support programs)