A child is defined by the Convention on Rights (CROC) as “any human being below the age of eighteen years, unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.” Whilst the aim behind this treaty is a valuable one, the effectiveness in enforcing it and ensuring accessibility for all can be thoroughly questioned. The Children’s court and the concept of Doli incapax are also mechanisms that have the equal goal of protecting rights for children, but again the efficiency of these means also need to be examined as to whether they are effective.
The purpose of CROC is to ensure every child receives standard rights, regardless of their race, gender, age etc. The Convention is a legally binding international instrument of Children’s …show more content…
This has resulted in a breach of rights in the case of the abuse and trauma inflicted upon children at the Don Dale Detention Centre in Northern Territory, as shown by the 4 Corners documentary report. Teenage boys at Don Dale were confined in a miniscule cell, deprived of basic necessities such as water and even tear gassed at a point. This report has not only proven rights being violated, but also the disadvantages children in certain areas face in terms of accessibility of CROC rights. Australia has proven the ineffectiveness of CROC in our country, but by implementing CROC’s principles into Australian domestic law at both Commonwealth and State and Territory level, this will provide mechanism for resolving complaints that the Convention has been breached, thus protecting human …show more content…
Doli incapax is a statutory presumption which cannot be questioned, presuming that anyone between the ages of 10 and 14 does not possess the necessary knowledge to have a criminal intention, unless proven that the child understood the wrongfulness of their actions. This notion exists to protect children at the age where their cognitive understanding cannot distinguish between right and wrong, yet young offenders can also use Doli incapax as protection for a crime intentionally committed. This in turn does not ensure justice for victims involved, also indicating that the effectiveness of Doli incapax is not necessarily at a high standard within our legal system, furthermore suggesting the need for amendments or change to be made.
It is believed that the Doli incapax is outdated and unfairly used in practice since children are now developing faster physically and mentally and are able to differentiate between right and wrong. Whether the need for law reform is needed or not, the fact remains that Doli incapax is available for every child in Australia and does indeed protect rights, whereas the value can be
The purpose of CROC is to ensure every child receives standard rights, regardless of their race, gender, age etc. The Convention is a legally binding international instrument of Children’s …show more content…
This has resulted in a breach of rights in the case of the abuse and trauma inflicted upon children at the Don Dale Detention Centre in Northern Territory, as shown by the 4 Corners documentary report. Teenage boys at Don Dale were confined in a miniscule cell, deprived of basic necessities such as water and even tear gassed at a point. This report has not only proven rights being violated, but also the disadvantages children in certain areas face in terms of accessibility of CROC rights. Australia has proven the ineffectiveness of CROC in our country, but by implementing CROC’s principles into Australian domestic law at both Commonwealth and State and Territory level, this will provide mechanism for resolving complaints that the Convention has been breached, thus protecting human …show more content…
Doli incapax is a statutory presumption which cannot be questioned, presuming that anyone between the ages of 10 and 14 does not possess the necessary knowledge to have a criminal intention, unless proven that the child understood the wrongfulness of their actions. This notion exists to protect children at the age where their cognitive understanding cannot distinguish between right and wrong, yet young offenders can also use Doli incapax as protection for a crime intentionally committed. This in turn does not ensure justice for victims involved, also indicating that the effectiveness of Doli incapax is not necessarily at a high standard within our legal system, furthermore suggesting the need for amendments or change to be made.
It is believed that the Doli incapax is outdated and unfairly used in practice since children are now developing faster physically and mentally and are able to differentiate between right and wrong. Whether the need for law reform is needed or not, the fact remains that Doli incapax is available for every child in Australia and does indeed protect rights, whereas the value can be