Childrens Court (1 Viewer)

[Jago]

Why is the stand of proof in childrens courts different to that of normal courts?

 

[rnitya_25]

because children are classified ignorant of the law in terms of what you're allowed to do and what you're not allowed to do. children are not always responsilbe for what they do because they are children (ie under 18)

 

[Jago]

and that's why conviction is easier? i dont get it...

 

[goan_crazy]

Does that really matter?
My understanding with this court is that it tries to protect children and make them feel more comfortable ie. closed court, free legal aid etc

 

[Jago]

i saw it in the book and didnt quite understand the rationale behind, so i figured i might as well ask.

joe - i dont understnad, what does making them more comfortable have anything to do with easier convictions?

 

[goan_crazy]

i saw it in the book and didnt quite understand the rationale behind, so i figured i might as well ask.

joe - i dont understnad, what does making them more comfortable have anything to do with easier convictions?

easier convictions? What do u mean? This isnt crime mate.
with children's court in family, its all about the "best interests of the child" and all that.
Also that children equality of status... no wait I mean Status of children Act gives all children equal rights under teh law.

 

[Jago]

the standand of proof in the Childrens Court is greater than on the balance of probabilities[ but less than beyond reasonable doubt

i was wondering why.

 

[rnitya_25]

ok, you do know that if you're under 18, ignorance is a defence in court, but when you exceed the age of 18, you no longer can defend yourself by being ignorant of the law. for example, if you ride your bicycle on the footpath, that is illegal, and if you're under 18, you can be excused because you are still a child, but when you become an adult, you hold responsibilities for all your actions, and therefor you no longer go to the children's court, but local court or whatever. if you're a child, you don't need to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, because your crimes or whatever are not taken as seriously as if you were an adult because you my have been unknown to laws. this is why you childrens court depend more on the balance of probabilites that the child committed the crime, than looking to prove beyond reasonable doubt. if that doesn't make sense, call the advice line...hope that helped though

 

[goan_crazy]

I don't know why u guys r talking about crime in family
thats called CROSS VESTING- a hawt word 2 use in an essay

 

[Jago]

thanks rnitya_25 (and joe, sort of)