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 5601758
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We have already been clear that we will have to introduce the right structures, and those will have to be scrutinised and stress-tested. That will be the start of a journey, not the end point. We would not enable the legislation immediately, because we will want to spend time with our justice partners looking at the mechanisms that need to be in place. To be clear, the Youth Justice Agency already deals with many young people who fall into that category or exhibit behaviour that falls short of a criminal offence in order to deflect them from criminal settings and deal with their behaviour. It is not an unknown thing that the Youth Justice Agency has no experience of, but I reassure the Member for Upper Bann that we would not want to make rapid changes in a space where we do not have the proper belt-and-braces response in place. We want to be sure that young people are protected. Often, their behaviour is not just a safeguarding issue for them but a danger to others, and we need to make sure that there are proper checks and balances in place to hold young people to account for their conduct but in an age-appropriate manner.
205 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 (0.90).
- 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 | 0.90 | 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 | 0.61 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.34 |
| 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.