Crime and Youth Care Facility Essay Sample free essay sample

Few yearss ago. the Senate approved on concluding reading a measure amending Republic Act No. 9344. otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. in order to better its execution. I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS GREAT ACT BY OUR LAWMAKERS. We all know that Republic Act No. 9344 has been intended to protect the public assistance of kids in struggle with the jurisprudence. bulk of who are guilty of junior-grade offenses such as junior-grade larceny. vagrancy and whiffing gum. Prior to the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. kids in struggle with the jurisprudence were thrown into the same prison cells as hard-boiled felons. Surveies show that most of them were first-time wrongdoers. while eight per centum committed offenses against belongings. These kids are so doomed to a life of offense. riping them victims of a judicial system that unwittingly breeds felons. With the execution of RA 9344. kids in struggle with the jurisprudence are being provided with intercession plans alternatively of being thrown into gaol. But like any other jurisprudence. certain commissariats of RA 9344 demand to be improved. Now. Senate Bill No. 3324 amended Republic Act No. 9344. NOT because it wants to revise it. but merely because it wants to clear up the significance of â€Å"fifteen old ages of age. † the age of condemnable duty. Current misunderstanding leads to youth wrongdoers under 15 old ages old being released when they should alternatively be capable to formal proceedings. Under the proposed step. kids 15 old ages old and under at the clip of the committee of the offense. will be exempted from condemnable liability. However. these bush leagues can confront civil liabilities in conformity with bing Torahs. Childs who are 15 old ages of age or under shall non be exempt from civil liabilities. Liability of parents for quasi-delicts and felonies committed by their minor kids is direct and primary and non subordinate. This means that the parents or defenders exerting parental authorization over their kids shall be responsible for the damages. reparation and damages for eventful amendss. as the instance may be. If the kid committed larceny. he or she is obliged to return the thing he or she has stolen. If it is non possible to return what he or she has stolen. the parents should pay the sum equivalent to what the kid has stolen. Children under this class shall be instantly released to the detention of his or her parents or defenders. or in the absence thereof. the child’s nighest comparative. Furthermore. kids who are 15 old ages old or below shall be subjected to a community-based intercession plan supervised by the local societal public assistance and development officer. unless the best involvement of the kid requires the referral of the kid to a young person attention installation or Bahay Pag-Asa managed by the DSWD. LGU’s or licensed and/or accredited NGOs monitored by the DSWD. The step besides proposes that repetition wrongdoers. or kids who have committed offenses more than three times. be considered as ignored kids and. as such. must undergo intercession plans supervised by the local societal public assistance and development officers. Meanwhile. the step besides states that kids 15 old ages old or below who committed flagitious offenses such as colza and slaying shall be compulsorily placed in a particular installation within the young person attention installation or Bahay Pag-Asa called the Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center. The proposed statute law besides provides the maximal punishment for those who exploit kids such as mobs. for the committee of condemnable discourtesies. This measure besides requires that understanding be alleged in the information in a condemnable instance affecting kids in struggle with the jurisprudence. Now. with all these characteristics of the amendment of the jurisprudence. I say I am in favour of such great move by our well-thought-of lawgivers. Thank you and hold a good twenty-four hours! —–End—– Amendments IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE A ; WELFARE ACT OF 2006 ( NEGATIVE SIDE/ ANTI – FOR DEBATE ) Few months ago. the House of Representatives passed on 3rd and concluding reading House Bill 6052 suggesting to take down the age of condemnable liability from 15 to 12 old ages old. The measure aims to amend Republic Act 9344. the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act. passed six old ages ago. I AM Not IN FAVOR OF SUCH MOVE BY OUR LAWMAKERS. My base is non to amend the Juvenile Justice Law but name for its effectual execution alternatively. Lowering the age of condemnable duty constitutes a sedate breach on the convention on the rights of the kid to which the Philippines has ratified and acceded. Our state must ever be guided by the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice. more normally known as the â€Å"Beijing Rules† . which is a model to see in finding the age of condemnable duty. The Beijing Rules recommends that the minimal age of condemnable duty â€Å"shall non be fixed at excessively low an age degree. bearing in head the facts of emotional. mental and rational adulthood. † Our oppositions postulate that the increasing figure of kids involved in flagitious offenses as the primary ground for amending the jurisprudence. But the consequences of an on-line canvass on the House of Representatives’ website show that public sentiment is on civil society’s side. with the bulk non in favour of the amendment. Online House canvass shows bulk disagree with take downing the age of condemnable liability. Asked if take downing the age of condemnable duty is a justifiable policy. 75 per centum of those who responded said no. while merely 25 per centum agreed with the proposal. The international community supports the same place. In the recent United Nations’ Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review ( UPR ) duologue in Geneva. a figure of states recommended implementing RA 9344 alternatively of amending it. Norway. in peculiar. recommended that the Philippines â€Å"take immediate steps to to the full implement the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. † Germany. interim. asked the Philippines to â€Å"ensure that the age of condemnable duty is non lowered. † It besides recommended for the betterment of prison conditions to guarantee the separation of juvenile detainees from grownup captives. Ecuador seconded Germany’s gesture. The inhumane conditions of children-in-conflict with the jurisprudence can non be denied from the eyes of the international community. Hence. during the UPR. most recommendations by foreign states to the Filipino authorities were addressed to guaranting that any signifiers of anguish and bodily penalty ( against kids ) should be looked into. Ladies and gentlemen. allow me repeat my base: I AM Not IN FAVOR OF SUCH MOVE BY OUR LAWMAKERS. —–End—–