That article was a pain in the ass to read, horribly structured.
What she did: “The court heard the girl was taken to the protest outside the Potters International Hotel, which houses asylum seekers, by a parent of a friend. Police body-worn video showed the teenager briefly bang and kick at a door of the hotel while voices could be heard telling her to stop.”
Her sentence, a “12-month referral order”: “A referral order means you are required to attend a youth offender panel. The panel, you, your parents/carers and the victim (where appropriate) agree a contract aimed at repairing the harm that has been caused and addressing the causes of the offending behaviours.” (https://unlock.org.uk/advice/referral-order-18/)
The conviction seems to be on permanent record, though, which does seem a bit much for this considering her age.
If the Wikipedia page on expungement is accurate there is some sort of process where it will get sealed from public view after a certain amount of time has passed.
I do agree if this is a one off thing it shouldn’t haunt the rest of her life, especially given the fact that we’re talking about a thirteen year old who was a victim of (at best) extremely negligent caregiving.
Good find! And yeah, the referral order sentence seems to be rather obviously aimed at rehabilitation instead of punishing, would be weird if that was combined with a lifelong criminal record that is visible to potential employers and the like.
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure “teenager” is not a legal distinction for which liability is determined. You are either an adult or not, and judges have leeway to funnel non-adults through an alternative justice system not available to adults.
I’ve never heard of that legal distinction, but I want you to go talk to any parent of a 13 year old and ask how they refer to a 13 year old and the vast majority will call those people a child and also call them a teenager. A ton of teachers will do the same thing.
At age 19 you are still a teenager but in the eyes of the law many times you are considered an adult.
So it is fair to call a 13 year old a child because basically they still are.
And if my daughter did something like this last year, I would absolutely want her to face legal repercussions. I love her, but that doesn’t mean I would find this to be in any way acceptable behavior, and at a level beyond what I as a parent could do.
I would, however, do my best to make sure she was put in a juvenile facility and given good mental healthcare.
“child, 13” - a 13yo is a teenager, not a child.
That article was a pain in the ass to read, horribly structured.
What she did: “The court heard the girl was taken to the protest outside the Potters International Hotel, which houses asylum seekers, by a parent of a friend. Police body-worn video showed the teenager briefly bang and kick at a door of the hotel while voices could be heard telling her to stop.”
Her sentence, a “12-month referral order”: “A referral order means you are required to attend a youth offender panel. The panel, you, your parents/carers and the victim (where appropriate) agree a contract aimed at repairing the harm that has been caused and addressing the causes of the offending behaviours.” (https://unlock.org.uk/advice/referral-order-18/)
The conviction seems to be on permanent record, though, which does seem a bit much for this considering her age.
If the Wikipedia page on expungement is accurate there is some sort of process where it will get sealed from public view after a certain amount of time has passed.
I do agree if this is a one off thing it shouldn’t haunt the rest of her life, especially given the fact that we’re talking about a thirteen year old who was a victim of (at best) extremely negligent caregiving.
Good find! And yeah, the referral order sentence seems to be rather obviously aimed at rehabilitation instead of punishing, would be weird if that was combined with a lifelong criminal record that is visible to potential employers and the like.
Like, who the fuck lets some guy take their child to a violent riot?
Teenagers are children, my dude.
Teenagers are minors, but not children, my guy.
At 13 they basically are still children
At 13, they are both basically and literally teenagers, which comes with the legal consequence of being liable for criminal actions.
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure “teenager” is not a legal distinction for which liability is determined. You are either an adult or not, and judges have leeway to funnel non-adults through an alternative justice system not available to adults.
I’ve never heard of that legal distinction, but I want you to go talk to any parent of a 13 year old and ask how they refer to a 13 year old and the vast majority will call those people a child and also call them a teenager. A ton of teachers will do the same thing.
At age 19 you are still a teenager but in the eyes of the law many times you are considered an adult.
So it is fair to call a 13 year old a child because basically they still are.
I have a 14-year-old.
They’re children.
And if my daughter did something like this last year, I would absolutely want her to face legal repercussions. I love her, but that doesn’t mean I would find this to be in any way acceptable behavior, and at a level beyond what I as a parent could do.
I would, however, do my best to make sure she was put in a juvenile facility and given good mental healthcare.
But a 22-year old is a child, also.