Debate contribution: Age of Criminal Responsibility: Doli Incapax
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Age of Criminal Responsibility: Doli Incapax
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5601750
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Were it to be reintroduced, we could end up running the risk of children of any age being referred into the formal justice system and considered potentially capable of understanding the crime that they had committed. We either accept that there is a minimum age of criminal responsibility or apply it differently. The further concern that I have is that we would end up expending significant resources on determining whether a child has the understanding and capability to be held criminally accountable, when we already know from all the studies that have been done on children's development that, even where a child knows that they have done wrong, their ability to conceive of permanence, for example, can be challenging, even into their teens. We also know that we have restricted resources, so to spend huge amounts of time looking at every child who is referred into the system in order to make that decision is to spend money that would be better spent on supporting those young people, diverting them from criminal activity, supporting their families and peers so that they are no longer as vulnerable to criminal activity and, hopefully, investing in support for victims. Our main concern is that we do right by society as a whole. By removing young people from the justice system, we have been able to demonstrate significant improvements in people's outcomes.
228 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.72 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.24 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:50 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.