ChatterBank3 mins ago
Are 17 Year Olds Children Or Adults? Update..
8 Answers
Following my post from 27/3 I thought you may be interested in the High Court Ruling.
Apologies if you saw this in my "mis post" but I received this email from Jane & Nick Lawton over the weekend.
Thank you if you felt able to sign the petition, I know it generated some discussion.
-----------------------------------
//Out of the tragedy of the past year a little bit of light came into our lives yesterday, and it wouldn't have happened without you.
Yesterday morning, the High Court ruled that 17 year olds must be treated as children in police custody and that the Government has been acting unlawfully by treating them as adults.
This is a fantastic victory and means that the Home Office must ensure that 17 year olds are treated as children in custody and their parents or another adult be informed about their arrest.
This wouldn't have been possible without your support. Over 55,000 joined you and signed our petition calling for the change in the law. We've been blown away by the response and all the comments that have been left in support have been amazing. Thank you.
Although this change won't bring back Joe, we are so pleased that no other parent will have to face what we did. As the judge ruled yesterday, a parent has the right to know what their child is facing and to support them. We know that if we had been there for Joe then it could have all been very different.
The Home Office has said that they accept the court's judgment and will consider the next steps they should take to implement the changes. We hope they will do this with speed and issue immediate guidance to police forces on how to protect 17 year olds.
We haven't had much to celebrate since we lost Joe. But thanks to you, everyone who signed our petition and all those who have supported us, we can celebrate today - an historic change to the law in memory of Joe.
Thank you for your support,
Nick and Jane Lawton//
Apologies if you saw this in my "mis post" but I received this email from Jane & Nick Lawton over the weekend.
Thank you if you felt able to sign the petition, I know it generated some discussion.
-----------------------------------
//Out of the tragedy of the past year a little bit of light came into our lives yesterday, and it wouldn't have happened without you.
Yesterday morning, the High Court ruled that 17 year olds must be treated as children in police custody and that the Government has been acting unlawfully by treating them as adults.
This is a fantastic victory and means that the Home Office must ensure that 17 year olds are treated as children in custody and their parents or another adult be informed about their arrest.
This wouldn't have been possible without your support. Over 55,000 joined you and signed our petition calling for the change in the law. We've been blown away by the response and all the comments that have been left in support have been amazing. Thank you.
Although this change won't bring back Joe, we are so pleased that no other parent will have to face what we did. As the judge ruled yesterday, a parent has the right to know what their child is facing and to support them. We know that if we had been there for Joe then it could have all been very different.
The Home Office has said that they accept the court's judgment and will consider the next steps they should take to implement the changes. We hope they will do this with speed and issue immediate guidance to police forces on how to protect 17 year olds.
We haven't had much to celebrate since we lost Joe. But thanks to you, everyone who signed our petition and all those who have supported us, we can celebrate today - an historic change to the law in memory of Joe.
Thank you for your support,
Nick and Jane Lawton//
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Mass_Hysteria. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Have to say i haven't seen you perevious thread.
I guess it's because one doesn't make a step change on a single day so the distinction is made at different ages for different things. For example can you get half fare on the bus at 17 ? So anomalies creep in.
IMO folk should be responsible for their actions way earlier than the law wishes to assume they don't know they're doing wrong. No reasonable person could think the young tearaway is that daft, they're just laughing at the law. Maybe they want to look at the system and phase responsiblilty in more year on year as one ages. At an early age one is held a low level of responsibility and by 18 it's reached full level. Or something similar.
I guess it's because one doesn't make a step change on a single day so the distinction is made at different ages for different things. For example can you get half fare on the bus at 17 ? So anomalies creep in.
IMO folk should be responsible for their actions way earlier than the law wishes to assume they don't know they're doing wrong. No reasonable person could think the young tearaway is that daft, they're just laughing at the law. Maybe they want to look at the system and phase responsiblilty in more year on year as one ages. At an early age one is held a low level of responsibility and by 18 it's reached full level. Or something similar.
-- answer removed --
Thanks All. There are anomolies all over, eg holiday travel, child until 12/13?
Personally, and I have every respect for others opinions and they are varied, I have a 16 year old daughter (going on 20!!) who is extremely unlikely to get into any serious trouble. HOWEVER, IF she did and however much she thinks she is grown up, i'm sure she would willingly be a child again if these were the circumstances so the police would call Mum and Dad. And so would I want her to.
Personally, and I have every respect for others opinions and they are varied, I have a 16 year old daughter (going on 20!!) who is extremely unlikely to get into any serious trouble. HOWEVER, IF she did and however much she thinks she is grown up, i'm sure she would willingly be a child again if these were the circumstances so the police would call Mum and Dad. And so would I want her to.
i dont know if the rules have been changed yet but a child who has been in care and reaches 16 is put into a hostel. then they are on their own. they might not have a job yet , have any one to one guidance that a loving family gives their child to cope with independance and solitude. they might not cope well with the situation and if they breach any rules or late rent etc they are tossed into the street. now consider this adulthood begins at 18. untill you are 18 years old you cant obtain credit , sign legal documents, or enter a contract. if you see youngsters sleeping rough dont automatically asume their a bad lot. there is a crack in the system that plunges 16 to 18 yr olds into an area of vulerability. too young to successfully care for there own needs regarding contracts etc but too old to be ENTITLED to government protection or social services help. you will see these lads hanging around in parks or shopping centres in the daytime because they have nowhere else to go. often begging due to no job or home. snubbed and looked down at by folk who think they are a better class of citizen and often moved on by police or if their lucks in they might be arrested. sad eh but the truth is a night in a warm cell can be a godsend to someone who has nothing. i ALWAYS carry a quilt in my car one reason is in case of breakdown in freezing wheather or an accident victim waiting for emergancy services and in shock but over and above all is to GIVE TO ANY PERSON SLEEPING ROUGH. maybe 1 in 10 who read this might show a bit more understanding towards these "louts" in the future or even go so far as offer them employment. once circumstance has hit these people they have an impossible time trying to improve matters.
-- answer removed --
1 to 8 of 8
