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 5601754
Read the official Assembly record
Text
With respect, the Member has a right to put his question, but I have the right to answer in whatever form I choose, and I will choose to answer in my own words and not those provided to me. As I stand here now, if someone under the minimum age of criminal responsibility commits a serious offence, we do not simply allow that person to go free. There are issues of public protection that have to be considered. Issues concerning that child and the risk at which they have placed themselves have to be considered, as do risks to other potential victims. It is not about creating a structure that would allow those who commit serious offences to get off scot-free and not be held accountable; it is about creating an accountability framework that is not part of the formal criminal justice system but allows young people to be confronted with the seriousness of their actions and for the necessary support and education to be provided to them so that they can desist from their offending behaviours. I therefore believe that, in such cases, appropriate measures would be taken. It is often said that hard cases make bad law, so, in debating what the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be, our focus should not be on seeking out hypothetical hard cases. It should be on looking at the evidence base that we have on child development and brain development and how we can support our young people better so that they do not offend but instead become well-adjusted, positive and constructive citizens in our community, which is what we would all like to see.
275 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: 0.05 (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 (0.92).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.62 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.33 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.