Debate contribution: Sentencing Practices in Northern Ireland
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Baker on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Baker
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 23 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Sentencing Practices in Northern Ireland
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5046351
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will go down a different route in my remarks. It is crucial that our justice system has children and young people at its heart, with a rights-based approach. I am mindful that the North has one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in the world. Our law states that the youngest age at which a child can be charged with a crime is 10 years old. That is not in line with international human rights standards. Sentencing and punishment is not just a matter of holding young people to account but about doing so in a way that gives them a chance to grow, reconcile and build a better future. Young people are still developing mentally, emotionally and socially. Scientific research has shown that their brains are still not fully mature, especially in the areas that control decision-making and impulse. That does not excuse bad behaviour, but it does mean that we have a responsibility to treat young offenders differently from adults. We need to understand the reasons why young people end up coming into contact with the criminal justice system. Often, children who offend have not had a fair start in life. Overwhelmingly, those children are among the most vulnerable in our society. Many of them have experienced multiple adversities and challenges in their lives, ranging from poverty to family breakdown, mental health problems and drug or alcohol issues. What happens when those young people are punished but not supported or when they leave a detention centre with no education or support, no job prospects and no one to believe in them? They go back to the only life that they know, and the cycle continues. Statistics show a high percentage of reoffending within a year of release. Instead of criminalising those young people, the disadvantage and the inequality that they face should be addressed.
Placing any child or young person in custody should always be the last option. Many children's rights advocates have highlighted serious concerns about the detrimental impact that detention can have on vulnerable children. It is essential that Departments and agencies work in tandem to provide support, education, counselling and community programmes that prevent reoffending. We need to intervene early and provide diversionary measures to make a difference in the quality of life for children and to prevent them becoming involved in crime. Every time that a child reoffends, it is a failure of the system that is supposed to support them. Every child who breaks that cycle and turns their life around is proof that hope, support and belief are stronger than fear. Let us remember that behind every court case or police report, there is a young person who might just need to someone to believe in them and to give them an opportunity and push them in the right direction. We must invest more in rehabilitation, because, when we lift a young person up instead of locking them away, we strengthen not just their future but society as a whole. Injustice anywhere, especially towards our youth, is a threat to justice everywhere. Let us build a justice system that protects children and young people.
524 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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | 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 | 0.84 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:51 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.