It is time the legal age for responsibility for major crimes is reviewed.
Young people aged 14 or 15, who are considered too immature to realise the gravity of their transgressions or to be aware of the moral codes that define our society, are responsible for heinous crimes.

But they're protected from many of the legal penalties while retaining their anonymity.
If a child at the age of 12 is already committing serious offences then it is time for some sort of effective deterrent to be employed, and his caregiver to be called to task. Immaturity should be no excuse. Family conferences where there is a lot of talk and promises of affirmative action are traditionally ineffective because the factors that cause the problems, lack of parental guidance and responsibility, in a section of society bereft of moral standards, do not change.

In olden times miscreants were put into the stocks.

While this practice may be a bit dated, as is the hanging of an eight-year-old for stealing a loaf of bread, it did give the populace an opportunity to show their disapproval.

But more importantly it disclosed the identity of the criminals.

Nowadays, lawbreakers, who may be responsible for a multitude of crimes over a long period, have their identities and criminality unknown by the general population; and so they can continue with their illegal activities, unchecked.

While a system of ‘Name and Shame' by publishing the name and previous convictions of the offender may not deter him, it may cause his relatives, friends and associates to show their disapproval by ostracising him - or by accepting some responsibility for his behaviour.

B Johnson, Omokoroa.