Amy Wiggins: Raising justice age right decision

The decision to raise the youth justice age has had me thinking hard.

Initially I was totally opposed to it but the more I mull it over, the more I think it could be the right decision - as long as it is tightly controlled.

Last week it was announced some 17-year-old offenders would soon be dealt with in the Youth Court.

The change applies to lower-risk, 17-year-old offenders but those with offences like murder, manslaughter, arson, sexual assault and aggravated robbery would continue to be dealt within the adult court.

The changes would still allow judges to transfer serious and repeat offenders aged 14 to 16 to the adult court if appropriate.

I still firmly believe people should know right from wrong by the age of 17.

I believe we are all born with an inherent knowledge of good and evil - what we do with that knowledge is up to us.

Before children can even talk they know when they are up to no-good - you can see it in the way they glance back at you with a mischievous grin before proceeding with what they know they shouldn't do.

To me, age is no excuse for committing crimes. That said, a 17-year-old who makes one bad decision and finds himself in court facing a relatively minor charge should not be hindered by that for the rest of his life.

The Youth Court still needs to deliver a sentence that will deter them from future crime.

They need to face some sort of punishment and own up to their mistakes, but they deserve a second chance.

We may not have found ourselves standing in a dock facing a judge, but we've all done things we regret. However, those who commit serious, violent crimes and/or are repeat offenders should continue to be dealt with in adult courts.

Just because they are young does not mean there are different rules. They are old enough to know what they are doing is illegal so they need to face the full force of the law.

We need our judges to use their discretion but take a tough stance to set our young offenders on the right path.