CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY: A PSYCHOLOGICAL VIEWPOINT  Nia Pryde   The concept of criminal responsibility appears to indicate the capacity of the individual to be responsible for his or her criminal acts, ie, acts which law has defined as criminal.  In 
psychological terms, this would imply. 

- That the individual is capable of perceiving that certain behaviour on his or her part constitutes a criminal act, ie., the act in contrary to the law and, hence, punishable. 

- That s/he can choose to respond differently in the situation. 

What we are discussing here is an aspect of social cognition that is commonly referred to as moral reasoning or moral judgment.  The development of moral reasoning in the child has
been considered by a number of investigators, the most influential of which have been Piaget and Kohlberg.  Piaget described stages in children's reasoning about right and 
wrong from moral realism (3 to 6 years of age) to moral reciprocity (emerging 9 to 11 years).  The latter stage is characterized by making judgments about reciprocity, ie., rules are accepted but can be questioned and changed by agreement.  By way of verification, the general development progression from moral realism to moral reciprocity has been 
replicated by a number of investigators; however, current opinion indicates that more factors may need to be considered in order to understand fully the development of moral 
reasoning. 

Kohlberg’s description of moral development refines Piaget’s theory and extends it into adolescence and adulthood.  Virtually all recent research is based on his theory.  Kohlberg 
outlines three main stages of moral reasoning, with two substages at each level: (see attached).  At Level 1 the (Preconventional Level) moral judgment is based on the desire to avoid punishment and gain rewards.  At Level 2 (the Conventional Level) the child is motivated by the desire to conform.  At Level 3 (the Post conventional Level) moral 
judgment is rational and internalised and behaviour is controlled by internal ethical and hierarchical, ie., that each stage follows from the one preceding and has some internal consistency. What determines the rather than the specific moral choice that is made. 

For our purposes, we may direct our attention to Level 2 (Conventional Morality) and to stages 3 and 4.  At stage 3 other people’s expectations in the family or small group to 
which the child belongs become important, as does “being good” for its own sake.  At stage 4 the child is turning to larger social groups for his or her norms.  There is a greater 
emphasis on doing one’s duty, respecting authority and following rules and laws, and there is less emphasis on what is pleasing to particular people. 

The results of stogies by Kohlberg and others indicate considerable agreement on the order of stages and on the approximate ages at which they predominate: 

- Preconventional reasoning (stages 1 and 2) is dominant in elementary school; stage 2 reasoning is also evident among many early adolescents.  Stage 2 reasoning is most 
dominant at about age 10. 

- Conventional reasoning (stages 3 and 4) emerges in middle adolescence and remains the most common form of moral reasoning in adulthood.  Stage 3 reasoning is most common 
at about age 16. 

-  Post conventional reasoning is relatively rare. 

The evidence indicated that the stages follow each other as Kohlberg proposed.  A study by Walker et. al in 1987 (see Bec, 1992) indicated that the majority of children reach 
stages 1-2 in first grade (age 6), stage 2 in 4th grade (age 9), stage 2-3 in seventh grade (age 12) stage 3 in tenth grade (age 15), and stages 3-4 as adults.  It has also been confirmed that subjects can understand moral arguments at their own level and at one stage higher than their own, but not above that.  With regard to the universality of these phenomena, snarey (see Bec, 1992) reports that different cultures vary in the highest level of reasoning observed and that stage 5 is more commonly attained in complex urban societies (both western and non western) that in characteristically the highest.  Other 
studies indicate that autonomous morality does not begin to develop until 12 or 13 years (see Porterfield & Stanton 199). 

It has been observed that moral behaviour does not always match moral reasoning. However, there is some connection, which appears to strengthen the higher the level. Kohlberg (sec Bec, 1992) found in one study that 15% of students whose reasoning was at stage 5 cheated when given the opportunity, whereas 55% did at the conventional level and 70% at the preconventional level.  Other issues that effect moral behaviour include: 

-  Habit.  We may respond to certain situations in an automatic manner. 

-  An action may be considered morally right without being morally necessary. 

-  When there is a moral conflict (eg., there is a cost involved in doing the right thing) then there is a more consistent association between more reasoning and behaviour. 

-  Competing motives affect moral behaviour (eg., peer group pressure or self-protection). In early adolescence, when the peer group influence is strong, children would be most susceptible to group decisions in relation to moral actions. 

It would seen that the majority of children are reaching the stage of conventional morality in mid-teens.  It is unlikely that children below this age will be able to perceive reliably 
what society requires of them in the way of law-abiding behaviour.  Furthermore, the link between moral reasoning and moral behaviour even at this age is  likely to be inconsistent. 
On the basis of the preceding discussion, it would appear that the rationale on which the present age of criminal responsibility is based does not accord with what is known about moral development in children.  In light of the above, a more realistic age of criminal responsibility would be 14 years, at which age a number of children, if not the majority, would be entering the level of conventional reasoning.  Potefield & Stanton (19xx) state in this regard that by the age of 14 years physical growth and independent reasoning will have progressed to the point that the individual can be said to have begun the transition form childhood to adulthood. 

Information from: 

 ¡DBee, Helen (1992).  The Developing Child (6th ed.).  Harper & Collins. 

¡DHetherington, E. Mayis & Parke, Ross D. (1986).  Child Psychology: A Contemporary Viewpoint (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. 

¡DPoterfield, T. & Stanton G.H. (19xx).  The Age of Majority: Article 1, in C.P. Cohen, Independent Commentary : United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, New York: Defence for Children International. 
 
 
 

The Rights to Have an Integrated Education Anna Hui  Center for Child Development, Hong Kong Baptist University  Hong Kong Committee on Children’s Rights 

The Article 29: 1(d) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (the Convention) states that the education of the child shall be directed to “preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin.”  This applies to both children with and without disabilities.  Both group of children should be provided with opportunities to meet children of different abilities so as to cultivate friendship, understanding, and tolerance through 
education, play and recreational activities, in their social environments (family, school and community). 

Have we prepared our children to live in an integrated society?  How many of them have experienced studying with children with special needs?  How many of them have played 
with children with special needs?  Chances are higher when children are aged below 6 as they may meet their disabled friends in the Integrated Child Care Centers operated by 
various social service agencies, such as Caritas Hong Kong and Hong Kong Christian Service.  These centers provide training and care for mildly disabled pre-schoolers with a 
ratio of 6:100 and a support of a special child care worker and health personnel.  When children go to primary schools, there is little chance that they can still study with their special friends who are most likely to be admitted to special schools. 

The Article 23:3 of the Convention states that States Parties shall “ensure that the disabled child has effective access to and receives education, training, health care services, rehabilitation services, preparation for employment and recreational opportunities in a manner conducive to the child’s achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development, including his other cultural and spiritual development”. 

Is experience of studying in special schools conducive to disabled children’s achieving fullest possible social integration?  The answer is definitely negative.  The practice of 
segregated education cannot facilitate understanding between able and disabled children. Our able children may not even be aware of the needs and characteristics of their disabled 
friends if they do not see them, talk with them, play with them and grow with them. 

Research on integrated education shows that it is indeed beneficial to both children with and without disabilities for their future lives in society.  For children with disabilities, they 
can make friends with peers who provide role models for age-appropriate behaviors, develop life-long skills, acquire social skills, increase social interaction, enhance self-image 
and produce a sense of affiliation in society.  For children without disabilities, they develop positive attitudes, experience personal growth, increase interpersonal understanding and 
thus prepare them to be sharing, participating and contributing members of the community (Dattilo, 1994). 

John Dattilo (1994) of University of Georgia suggests the following methods to improve attitudes of people toward disability: attend presentations and discussions, develop 
awareness of attitudes, participate in simulations and experience direct contact.  Through extensive personal contact, joint participation which facilitates equal status , cooperative interdependence and effective communication, our children will become more aware of the similarities, in addition to the differences in every child.  Participation rights has been one of the broad areas of rights of children in the Convention.  These rights have to be open for both able and disabled children.  It is through direct contact and participate in 
simulations that these children gain a mutual understanding towards one another. 

A pilot scheme on integrated education as introduced by the Education Department started in September this year.  Children with the following special needs are integrating into the mainstream classroom: mildly mental handicapped, hearing impaired, visual impaired, physical handicapped and autism (with normal intelligence level).  Seven primary schools 
and two secondary schools took part in the two-year project.  The objectives are to enhance the acceptance of disabled children in teachers, students as well as parents, to 
experiment integrated education in classrooms, and to build a model school for integrated education.  Each school has taken 5-8 special students of the above two categories. 
Although it is still too early to assess the effectiveness of the Integrated Child Care Center in early childhood education is already an evidence to the positive effect of integrated education. 

Level of integration may be varied from: special schools of all handicapped classes, to special units functioning as parts of regular schools with integrated services, to partial withdrawal from the classroom for special activities, and finally to full integration into an everyday classroom (Rehabaid & Rotary Rehabaid Centre, 1987).  The implementation of the pilot scheme of integrated education is advancing from the first level to the second level of integration.  It is hoped that more aided primary and secondary schools will be interested 
in the concept of integrated education and take part in the provision of integrated education services for children.  How about asking both group of children directly whether they like 
to study and grow together? 

It is  a right of children with disabilities as well as children without disabilities to be prepared for a responsible life in the spirit of understanding, tolerance as well as friendship 
among all people. 

Somewhere, sometime, we all need help.  Somewhere, sometime, we are all handicapped. Some of us are handicapped, in some way, for the rest of our lives.”  (The Central Coordinating Committee for the International year of Disabled Persons and Joint Council for the Physically and Mentally Disabled, 1981). 

References 

¡DDattilo, J. (1994). Inclusive Leisure Services: Responding to the Rights of People with Disabilities.  Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing, Inc. 

¡DHong Kong Government. (1995)  United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Hong Kong: The Government Printer. 

¡DHong Kong Government. (1996) Initial Report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in respect of Hong Kong under Article 44 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  Hong Kong: The Government Printer. 

¡DRehabaid & Rotary Rehabaid Centre (1987).  Integration.  Hong Kong: Rehabaid & Rotary Rehabaid Centre. 

¡DThe Central Coordinating Committee for the International Year of Disabled Persons & Joint Council for the Physically and Mentally Disabled. (1981).  One of Us; Integration of Disabled Persons.  Hong Kong: The Central Coordinating Committee for the International Year of Disabled Persons & Joint Council for the Physically and Mentally Disabled.