Hello, I'm Mrs. Barry, and I'm going to be your citizenship teacher today.

We've got an exciting lesson to look at, which involves a deliberative discussion.

So we're going to do that together.

And some of this might be new to you, but that's okay.

Because I'm here to help you and by the end, we'll have achieved our outcome and had a successful lesson.

So let's make a start.

Today's lesson comes in the unit, What is the law and how has it changed? Our lesson is a deliberative discussion on should the age of criminal responsibility be changed.

Today's outcome is to analyse and evaluate different perspectives on whether the age of criminal responsibility should be changed and form your own opinion based on evidence and reasoning.

During today's lesson, we need to bear in mind some ground rules.

Laura reminds us to listen to others.

It is okay to disagree with each other, but we should listen properly before making assumptions or deciding how to respond.

When disagreeing, challenge the statement not the person.

Andeep reminders to respect privacy.

We can discuss examples, but do not use names or descriptions that identify anyone including ourselves.

Izzy reminds us to choose the level of participation.

Everyone has the right to choose not to answer a question or join discussion.

We never put anyone on the spot.

And Jacob reminds us not to judge.

So no judgement.

We can explore beliefs and misunderstandings about a topic without fear of being judged.

During today's lesson, there's a range of keywords we're going to use.

Let's have a look at these now.

Law are rules usually made by parliament that are used to order the way in which a society behaves.

Age of criminal responsibility refers the minimum age at which a person can be legally considered responsible for a crime.

And crime is an illegal act that is punishable by law.

Our lesson has three parts in it today, and we're going to be looking at what is the age of criminal responsibility, how can we plan for a deliberative discussion? And then we're going to use that to have a deliberative discussion on should the age of criminal responsibility change.

So we're starting off with what is the age of criminal responsibility? Everyone must follow the law.

However, the age at which a child can be held responsible for breaking it varies by country.

In England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old.

In Scotland, it is 12.

Children under 10, and the law.

Children under 10 cannot be arrested or charged with a crime.

They may face consequences like a curfew or a safety order.

If they break the law.

Children under 10 who commit crimes may not face charges, but if they continue to break the law, they could be placed in care or their parents may be held accountable.

Young people aged 10 to 17 can be arrested and taken to court if they commit a crime, they're treated differently from adults.

For example, they are tried in youth courts given different sentences, or sent to special centres for young people, not adult prisons.

Anyone aged 18 and over is treated as an adult under the law.

The age of criminal responsibility is not the same all over the world.

For example, in Grenada, Trinidad, and Tobago, it's age seven.

In Guyana, it's age 10.

in Scotland, Belgium, South Africa, and Brazil, it's age 12.

In France, it's age 13.

In Spain, Japan, China, it's age 14.

In Norway it's 15.

And in Cuba and Argentina, it's 16.

Let's check what we've done so far.

So I'd like you to fill in the missing words In what the age of criminal responsibility is? 13 while in what it is 15.

Give that a go.

So here we are, in France, the age of criminal responsibility is 13, while in Norway it is 15.

What key changes happened to the law in 1998? In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, The age of criminal responsibility has been 10 since 1963.

Before 1998, children age 10 to 14 were presumed not to be criminally responsible unless it could be proven they understood their actions were wrong.

This changed after the James Bulger case in 1993, where two 10 year olds committed a tragic and serious crime, leading to the removal of the presumption for children age 10 to 14.

Let's see if you can do this.

In which year did the law regarding the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales change? Was it A, 1993.

B, 1998.

Or C, 2000? It was 1998.

The law changed after James Bulger was murdered in 1993 by two 10 year olds, this led to children aged 10 to 14 being held criminally responsible without needing to prove they understood it was wrong.

Let's practise what we've learned so far.

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The age of criminal responsibility is 10.

How does this compare to the age in at least two other countries? Explain your answer in one paragraph, give this a go, and when you've tried it, come back and we can have a look at what you might have put.

Okay, so the task I set you was to look at how does England, Wales and Northern Ireland's age of criminal responsibility compared to at least two other countries, and you were to explain your answer in one paragraph.

So this is what you might have said.

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the age of criminal responsibility is 10.

But in countries like Belgium and Scotland, it is 12.

And in Spain it is 14.

This means children in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, can be held responsible for crimes at a younger age than in other countries.

In places like Spain, children are not considered criminally responsible until they're 14, which gives them more time to grow and understand the consequences of their actions.

However, in countries like Grenada, the age of seven, this shows that different countries have different ideas about when children should be held responsible.

So we're gonna have a look at part two of our lesson, and we're gonna think about how we can plan for a deliberative discussion.

So you're preparing to have a deliberative discussion based on the following question, should the age of criminal responsibility in England be changed? Consider the arguments you might use on either side of this discussion.

So what arguments could there be for changing the age of criminal responsibility? At a younger age, children may not fully understand the consequences of their actions.

Increasing the age of criminal responsibility would allow them more time to mature and grasp the seriousness of their behaviour.

Children are still developing and should be given the chance to change rather than being punished harshly.

Raising the age would ensure that children are treated in a way that helps then grow and make better decisions in the future.

Other arguments for changing the age of criminal responsibility could include, many countries like Spain and Norway have higher ages of criminal responsibility, such as 14 or 15.

These countries focus on rehabilitation and provide young offenders with support to reintegrate them back into society.

If young children are arrested and treated like criminals, it can label them for life.

By raising the age, we can avoid calling children criminals too early, giving them a better chance at a positive future.

In 2013, a private member's Bill was introduced to Parliament to increase the age of criminal responsibility to 12 years.

The Bill did not pass and the law in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland remained the same.

The United Nations Committee on the rights of the child said that 12 should be the youngest age at which children can be held responsible for a crime.

This advice is part of the UN's work to protect children's rights and make sure they aren't treated as criminals before they're ready.

So thinking of the opposite side, what arguments could there be for keeping the age of criminal responsibility at 10? Children as young as 10 can commit serious crimes and they should be held accountable.

If we raise the age, it could send the wrong message that there are no consequences for harmful behaviour.

The victims of crimes committed by children deserve justice, and if we don't hold young offenders responsible, it could undermine the rights and protection of the victims and their families.

Other arguments for keeping the age of criminal responsibility at 10 could include, The sooner we address criminal behaviour, the better the chance we have to prevent young people from becoming repeat offenders.

Lowering the age ensures that children who commit crimes are dealt with early and can receive the help they need.

Children today are exposed to lots of adult content.

They may more aware of their actions and the consequences than we think.

Keeping the age of criminal responsibility at 10 ensures we don't underestimate their ability to understand right and wrong.

That's a lot of arguments we've had a look at.

So let's check where we are.

Is this true or false? One argument against changing the age of criminal responsibility is that children are still developing and should be given a chance to rehabilitate rather than face punishment.

What do you think? So that's false.

This is an argument for changing the age not against it.

Which of the following is an argument for changing the age of criminal responsibility? A, children as young as 10 can commit serious crimes and they should be held accountable.

B, Many countries like Spain and Norway have higher ages of criminal responsibility and focus on rehabilitation.

Or C, victims of crimes committed by children deserve justice and should not be ignored.

So that's B.

An argument for change in the age of criminal responsibility is that many countries like Spain and Norway have higher ages of criminal responsibility and focus on rehabilitation.

So what I'd like you to do here is sort the four arguments into two categories, arguments for changing the age of criminal responsibility.

And arguments against changing the age.

So we've got children are still developing and should be given a chance to rehabilitate rather than face harsh punishment.

Victims of crimes committed by children deserve justice and raising the age of criminal responsibility could undermine their rights.

Many countries like Spain and Norway have higher ages of criminal responsibility and focus on rehabilitation and providing support for young offenders.

And children as young as 10 can commit serious crimes and they should be held accountable to prevent further harm.

So which ones are for and which ones are against changing the age of criminal responsibility.

So you might have sorted your statements in a range of ways, like columns or lists, but it could look something like this.

Arguments for changing the age, children are still developing and should be given a chance to rehabilitate rather than face harsh punishment.

Many countries like Spain and Norway have higher ages of criminal responsibility and focus on rehabilitation and providing support for young people.

Arguments against changing the age, include children as young as 10 can commit serious crimes, and they should be held accountable to prevent further harm.

And victims of crimes committed by children deserve justice and raising in the age of criminal responsibility could undermine their rights.

So now we're gonna choose one argument from each side that you think is the strongest.

I would like you to write a brief explanation that explains your choices, and once you've done that, come back and we'll see what you picked and suggest how you might have done that.

Okay, so well done for giving that a go.

And I ask you to choose one argument from each side that you think is the strongest.

So one argument for changing the age and one argument against writing a brief explanation, explaining your choices.

So you could have said something like this, the strongest argument for changing the age.

I think the argument about rehabilitation is the strongest because children are still learning and developing and could change their behaviours with the right support.

You could have said that the strongest argument against changing the age would be that I think the argument that children need to be held accountable is the strongest because serious crimes should have consequences no matter how old you are.

So now we've planned for a deliberative discussion.

It's time to think about the question.

Should the age of criminal responsibility change? In a deliberative discussion on changing the age of criminal responsibility.

We consider various viewpoints and weigh up relevant information.

We can use the REAL model to structure our contributions.

So let's have a look at that.

Firstly, we have rationale, which is a short statement to summarise your overall argument.

Then we need examples, a statistic, case study, or story that supports the argument or your rationale.

Then we need analysis, and that's an explanation of your viewpoint to make it really clear.

And then lastly, a link.

And we need to link it back to the rationale and put together any closing words.

We can prepare for the discussion by writing down ideas for our contributions similar to preparing a speech.

So this is a suggested layout we could do.

So we can put notes together on our introduction.

So who you are and why you're making this contribution.

We can put our first paragraph together, which would be your first real point, a second paragraph, which is your second real point, and another paragraph, which would be your third real point, remembering that real is the acronym we've just used to help us lay this out.

And then we have a conclusion.

So that's your summary and reminder to the audience as to why you are making this contribution.

Now, have we understood this? True or false in a deliberative discussion, the REAL model stands for reason, examples, argument, and link.

Hmm.

Okay, so that's false, well done if you spotted why.

In a deliberative discussion, the real model actually stands for rationale, examples, analysis and link.

So which persuasive techniques could you use in your contribution? Asking questions.

Would you want your child to face this? Emphasise key points, this change could save thousands of lives.

Using facts, in 2023, 59,045 young people aged 10 to 17 were arrested.

Using groups of three adjectives.

Rehabilitation is effective, compassionate, and essential.

Using emotional language.

Both victims and young offenders find the system intimidating and overwhelming.

Repeating phrases, we can change this, we will change this, together we will make a difference.

So thinking about those persuasive techniques, can you match the persuasive technique to the correct example? So on the left here, we've got using facts, using groups of three adjectives, and using emotional language.

And the examples are, both victims and young offenders find the system intimidating and overwhelming.

In 2023, 59,045, young people aged 10 to 17 were arrested.

And rehabilitation is effective, compassionate, and essential.

Okay, so let's check if you have matched them to the correct examples.

So in terms of using facts, we've got a fact here, in 2023, 59,045, young people aged 10 to 17 were arrested.

In terms of using groups of three adjectives.

We had that down here, so rehabilitation is effective, compassionate, and essential.

And then that leaves out using emotional language, which is both victims and young offenders find the system intimidating and overwhelming.

Well done if you match those up correctly.

So use the REAL model, rationale, examples, analysis and link to prepare your contribution to a deliberative discussion on whether the age of criminal responsibility should be changed or not.

So just a reminder of what you're doing here.

Your rationale needs to state your position on the age of criminal responsibility and why.

Examples are statistics or case studies or examples to support your viewpoint.

The analysis needs to explain your reasoning in more detail and its relevance to the discussion.

And then you need a link, and that's you connecting back to your rationale and ending it with a strong closing statement.

Using any of the techniques we've just gone through.

So pause the video, give that a really good go.

And when you've given it a go, you can come back and we can have a look at how you might have done it.

Okay, well done for giving it a go.

And let's have a look at what you might have put together.

So I asked you to use the real model to prepare your contribution to a deliberative discussion on whether the age of criminal responsibility should be changed or not.

And your answer might have looked something like this.

So your rationale might have included.

The age of criminal responsibility should be kept at 10 years old because young children are capable of understanding right from wrong and should be held accountable for their actions.

For example, in the UK, children as young as 10 can commit serious crimes.

For example, in 1993, two 10 year olds were convicted of the tragic murder of James Bulger.

This shows the children are aware of the consequences of their actions and should face justice.

And we continue on.

Your analysis might have said, if we change the age of criminal responsibility, it could send the message that children can get away with serious crimes.

Holding children accountable at a young age also make sure that victims and their families receive justice and that young offenders understand the seriousness of their actions.

And then we're gonna link it back.

By keeping the age at 10, we make sure children understand that actions have consequences, which helps prevent future crimes and protects society.

You might have had a different point of view.

And so let's look at how we might have laid that out.

So perhaps your answer looked like this.

So in your rationale, you might have said, I believe the age of criminal responsibility should be raised because children are still developing and need more time to understand the consequences of their actions.

Your example might have included, in Spain the age of criminal responsibility is 14.

And this allows children to receive rehabilitation instead of punishment.

This helps them understand their mistakes and avoid future crimes.

And your answer might have continued with this.

So your analysis might have said, the UN recommends that the youngest a child should be held criminally responsible is 12.

Children under 12 might not fully understand how serious their actions are.

If we raise the age, they would be given more time to mature and receive support, which could help them make better decisions in the future.

In countries with a higher age of criminal responsibility, like Norway, young offenders are given the chance to change.

And then we're gonna link it back.

Raising the age would give young people a chance to grow and change, helping prevent them from becoming repeat offenders.

This would be better for society in the long run, as it focuses on rehabilitation over punishment.

Well done if you put an answer like those together.

So in our lesson today, we have looked at a deliberative debate on whether that we should change the age of criminal responsibility.

and we've learned that in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, the age of criminal responsibility is 10, unchanged since 1963.

Children under 10 can't be arrested, but may face other consequences.

Young people age 10 to 17 are tried in youth courts and given different sentences.

There are arguments on both sides.

Some say the age should be raised for rehabilitation, as in Spain, which sits at age 14.

While others believe it should stay at 10 for justice as in the case of James Bulger.

In a deliberative discussion, we take time to consider different viewpoints and weigh all the relevant information.

Using the REAL, rationale, examples, analysis and link model.

We can explore different perspectives and develop well-informed opinions.