When Neuroscience met Law

Findings by The Royal Society have shown what parents have known all along; it can take up to the age of 20 for the parts of the brain that govern our judgment and decision making ability to fully develop.

When considering the arguments for and against raising the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales from the age of 10, physical development of the brain is not enough to decide if and when a young person should be held accountable for their actions. Environmental factors, most importantly, the role of parents and the wider family, or even community, can also have a significant impact on whether or not a child acts outside of the criminal law. If children are so susceptible to making decisions mean that they commit crimes, then why do most children manage to stay on the "right path"?

Most children by the age of 10 know the difference between right and wrong. I've read comments that this is not enough in itself to make children criminals. To an extent this is true; however it is a starting point, and one factor to be used. In 2010, the Children's Commissioner, Maggie Atkinson reported to the Government that under 12s did not fully understand their actions. I can remember being 12, even younger, and I can remember some children were very adapt at manipulating adults. Overhearing teenage conversations can be a real eye-opener as to what to say and what not to say to parents or teachers.

Whilst these findings are interesting, caution should be exercised in how they are applied. Children develop at different rates; plenty of adults don't make the right choices at times. There is a danger that unavoidable excuses are being provided, and that this could detract from the real reasons why children commit crimes, such as poor or irresponsible parenting, gang culture and peer pressure, and problems with society in general. Brain development is one part of an important jigsaw.