Summative Essay
Child Soldiers
To what extent should child soldiers be held accountable for their crimes?
Gather and present information representing different perspectives
Analyze issues within the topic
For years the use of children in both conflicts between states and civil wars has been evident. Children are forced by commanders through false promises, drugs and things which you can’t even imagine, to kill innocent civilians, other children and even their own families. Universally, the use of child soldiers has been frowned upon as both unacceptable and abhorrent. Despite this, in the last ten years over two million children have been killed, over one million orphaned, over six million have been left seriously injured or permanently disabled and over 10 million have been diagnosed with psychological trauma. However, the question still remains whether or not child soldiers should be held accountable for their crimes. In other words are child soldiers the victims or the perpetrators?
The debate regarding child soldiers has prolonged for years and as of yet there appears to be no definite answer. Both sides of the argument bring up strong points, but it is about time an answer is brought up.
On one side of the argument, many believe that child soldiers are not morally responsible for the actions they perform. More often than not children have no say in whether they enlist or not and once recruited the children become brainwashed through the use of drugs and alcohol. The drugs and alcohol make the children become more compliant enabling them to commit atrocities which they never would have before.
Furthermore, many children join without carefully thinking through their decision. At the time they might believe that recruiting would lead to a safer life as necessities such as food, water and shelter would be available; actually fighting in war would not cross their mind. However, once they are recruited the children become over reliant on their commanders for shelter, money, water, drugs and alcohol that they find an extreme difficulty to leave. Children at that young age will rarely ever have the same understanding as an adult.
In addition to this, many believe, including me, that rehabilitation should be the aim and not punishment. The Truth and Reconciliation Commissions and Disarmament, Demobilization and Reconciliation program, often abbreviated TTR and DDR, are far better ways of helping children recover and reintegrate back into society and out of war. The problem with prosecution is that it poses far too many problems. For instance, prosecution can be selective and be based upon a lack of evidence. Rehabilitation programs are comprehensive and have proven successful. Take the case of the former Sierra Leone child soldier Ishmael Beah. After being caught in the center of a vicious civil war in Sierra Leone, Ishmael was forced to become a child soldier. Years later he was taken to a rehabilitation center and has gone to become a semi-famous musician.
On the other side of the arguments strong points are likewise brought up. For instance, many believe that child soldiers are mere replicas of child criminals; child criminals are prosecuted. Over the course of the past decades child soldiers have been responsible for some of the most brutal acts in wartime, such as rape, mutilation and mass killings of innocent civilians. Most domestic laws state that the age of criminal responsibility is much lower than 18 (child soldiers are generally considered children under the age of 18). If a child can be convicted for murder under these domestic laws there should be no exception for child soldier’s just because their crimes occurred in wartime.
Children often become child soldiers in acts of patriotism and in want to avenge the deaths of their family members. Furthermore, it would be false to proclaim that all child soldiers are forced into fighting. Some children join without being forcibly recruited. Children such as these knew what they were doing and thus should be taken into custody.
Another important point to bring up in this side of the argument is that if children aren’t prosecuted it would be a denial of the victim’s justice. Many believe that it would be unjust and unright to allow the perpetrators-the child soldiers- to be allowed to walk free and stand side-by-side with their victims.
Lastly, if child soldiers are not prosecuted this could be an incentive for their commanders to delegate them to commit war crimes as they would know there are no consequences.
Around the world opinions are mixed as to whether child soldiers should be held accountable for their crimes. The Children and Justice During and in the Aftermath Conflict report states: “If a child under the age of 15 is considered too young to fight, then he or she must also be considered too young to be held criminally responsible for serious violations of IHL while associated with armed forces or armed groups.” This is one side of the story and a strong one to say the least. The report also stated that: “Children are often desired as recruits because they can be easily intimidated and indoctrinated. They lack the mental maturity and judgment to express consent or to fully understand the implications of their actions… and are pushed by their adult commanders into perpetrating atrocities.” This argument is strong. At a young age it is often easy to become intimidated and children often don’t think of the bigger picture, in other words the consequences of their actions. There is scientific prove to back up this statement. The section of the brain known as the frontal lobes controls decision making and only fully develops well into your 20's. Children simply lack the ability to think of the long term consequences of their actions. This is the argument being made by this statement. Looking at the other side of the argument, strong points are brought up. For instance, Radhika Coomaraswamy, the SRSG for children and armed conflict stated her side of the argument: “If minor children who have committed serious war crimes are not prosecuted, this could be an incentive for their commanders to delegate to them the dirtiest orders, aiming at impunity. I brought up this argument in an earlier paragraph and have decided to mention once again as I think it is a very solid point.
Locally, child soldiers are uncommon. However, as we spread ourselves to other parts of the Middle East the use of child soldiers becomes evident. For instance, in Yemen, children as young as 13 and 14 are seen fighting in war. Yemeni law stipulates 18 as the minimum age of criminal responsibility. However, in this third world, war struck country, laws are rarely followed and as a result children younger than 18 are recruited by the army and also prosecuted. For example, Akram, a nine year old child who was used as a bomber, was prosecuted for the crimes he committed despite being 9 years younger that the current minimum age of criminal responsibility in Yemen. Furthermore, during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980’s, Iranian children who were used as soldiers would be sent out ahead in waves over minefields. Also, during Palestine’s fight with Israel, children would often be used as soldiers from both sides.
Personally, I believe child soldiers should not be prosecuted for their crimes. I have developed this opinion after conducting research on this topic. I have discovered that child soldiers are often forced into fighting through false promises. They are also forced into fighting through drugs and alcohol. The drugs, often cocaine mixed with gun powder, brainwash the children to the point where they would rather not escape from the horror unraveling around them. I personally believe anyone who has to succumb to such horrors and atrocities should not be prosecuted for the crimes they committed. Furthermore, I consider child soldiers different from ordinary child criminals. Let me explain. child soldiers, as I have mentioned earlier, are abducted and then forced into murdering innocent human beings. They have no choice, if they don’t fight their killed, if they fight they kill. Child criminals, on the other hand, are not forced into killing innocent civilians; they do it through a motive, often weak ones, such as killing someone for their money. Here I have just pointed a couple of strong differences between the two. In order to fully understand my reason for considering child soldiers different from child criminals let’s take at an example. In 1999, Lionel Tate, a 12 year old boy, was convicted for murdering a 6 year old girl he was babysitting. Unlike child soldiers, Lionel Tate was not forced into murdering. I do think children such as Lionel should be prosecuted, whereas child soldiers who are forcibly recruited shouldn’t be. I believe they should be taken to rehabilitation center in order for them to be reintegrated into society.
The main issue that develops from the idea of child soldiers is defining the minimal age of criminal responsibility. As mentioned earlier, child soldiers are generally considered children under the age of 18, however, despite this child soldiers younger than 18 are often prosecuted. International Criminal Court Article 26 prohibits the court from prosecuting anyone under the age of 18; however, in spite of this child soldiers are still trialed and jailed for their actions. For example, child soldiers such as Ishmael Beah from Sierra Leone and Emmaunuel Jal from Sudan were prosecuted and jailed, which really only strengthened the problems these children are facing. Emmanuel Jal was quoted saying: “I didn’t have a life as child. In five years as a fighting boy, what was in my heart was to kill as many Muslims as possible.” Children at this age should not have to succumb to such pain. Not only this, they were only 15 when they were prosecuted which means, the word of the law, they were still too young for prosecution.
Overall, I believe child soldiers should not be held responsible for their crimes. From the drugs to the alcohol, these children are placed under horrific circumstances which are preposterous. They kill to stay alive and those who try to escape are killed. Any child, any human, who has to live under such situations should not be convicted for their crimes.
The debate regarding child soldiers has prolonged for years and as of yet there appears to be no definite answer. Both sides of the argument bring up strong points, but it is about time an answer is brought up.
On one side of the argument, many believe that child soldiers are not morally responsible for the actions they perform. More often than not children have no say in whether they enlist or not and once recruited the children become brainwashed through the use of drugs and alcohol. The drugs and alcohol make the children become more compliant enabling them to commit atrocities which they never would have before.
Furthermore, many children join without carefully thinking through their decision. At the time they might believe that recruiting would lead to a safer life as necessities such as food, water and shelter would be available; actually fighting in war would not cross their mind. However, once they are recruited the children become over reliant on their commanders for shelter, money, water, drugs and alcohol that they find an extreme difficulty to leave. Children at that young age will rarely ever have the same understanding as an adult.
In addition to this, many believe, including me, that rehabilitation should be the aim and not punishment. The Truth and Reconciliation Commissions and Disarmament, Demobilization and Reconciliation program, often abbreviated TTR and DDR, are far better ways of helping children recover and reintegrate back into society and out of war. The problem with prosecution is that it poses far too many problems. For instance, prosecution can be selective and be based upon a lack of evidence. Rehabilitation programs are comprehensive and have proven successful. Take the case of the former Sierra Leone child soldier Ishmael Beah. After being caught in the center of a vicious civil war in Sierra Leone, Ishmael was forced to become a child soldier. Years later he was taken to a rehabilitation center and has gone to become a semi-famous musician.
On the other side of the arguments strong points are likewise brought up. For instance, many believe that child soldiers are mere replicas of child criminals; child criminals are prosecuted. Over the course of the past decades child soldiers have been responsible for some of the most brutal acts in wartime, such as rape, mutilation and mass killings of innocent civilians. Most domestic laws state that the age of criminal responsibility is much lower than 18 (child soldiers are generally considered children under the age of 18). If a child can be convicted for murder under these domestic laws there should be no exception for child soldier’s just because their crimes occurred in wartime.
Children often become child soldiers in acts of patriotism and in want to avenge the deaths of their family members. Furthermore, it would be false to proclaim that all child soldiers are forced into fighting. Some children join without being forcibly recruited. Children such as these knew what they were doing and thus should be taken into custody.
Another important point to bring up in this side of the argument is that if children aren’t prosecuted it would be a denial of the victim’s justice. Many believe that it would be unjust and unright to allow the perpetrators-the child soldiers- to be allowed to walk free and stand side-by-side with their victims.
Lastly, if child soldiers are not prosecuted this could be an incentive for their commanders to delegate them to commit war crimes as they would know there are no consequences.
Around the world opinions are mixed as to whether child soldiers should be held accountable for their crimes. The Children and Justice During and in the Aftermath Conflict report states: “If a child under the age of 15 is considered too young to fight, then he or she must also be considered too young to be held criminally responsible for serious violations of IHL while associated with armed forces or armed groups.” This is one side of the story and a strong one to say the least. The report also stated that: “Children are often desired as recruits because they can be easily intimidated and indoctrinated. They lack the mental maturity and judgment to express consent or to fully understand the implications of their actions… and are pushed by their adult commanders into perpetrating atrocities.” This argument is strong. At a young age it is often easy to become intimidated and children often don’t think of the bigger picture, in other words the consequences of their actions. There is scientific prove to back up this statement. The section of the brain known as the frontal lobes controls decision making and only fully develops well into your 20's. Children simply lack the ability to think of the long term consequences of their actions. This is the argument being made by this statement. Looking at the other side of the argument, strong points are brought up. For instance, Radhika Coomaraswamy, the SRSG for children and armed conflict stated her side of the argument: “If minor children who have committed serious war crimes are not prosecuted, this could be an incentive for their commanders to delegate to them the dirtiest orders, aiming at impunity. I brought up this argument in an earlier paragraph and have decided to mention once again as I think it is a very solid point.
Locally, child soldiers are uncommon. However, as we spread ourselves to other parts of the Middle East the use of child soldiers becomes evident. For instance, in Yemen, children as young as 13 and 14 are seen fighting in war. Yemeni law stipulates 18 as the minimum age of criminal responsibility. However, in this third world, war struck country, laws are rarely followed and as a result children younger than 18 are recruited by the army and also prosecuted. For example, Akram, a nine year old child who was used as a bomber, was prosecuted for the crimes he committed despite being 9 years younger that the current minimum age of criminal responsibility in Yemen. Furthermore, during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980’s, Iranian children who were used as soldiers would be sent out ahead in waves over minefields. Also, during Palestine’s fight with Israel, children would often be used as soldiers from both sides.
Personally, I believe child soldiers should not be prosecuted for their crimes. I have developed this opinion after conducting research on this topic. I have discovered that child soldiers are often forced into fighting through false promises. They are also forced into fighting through drugs and alcohol. The drugs, often cocaine mixed with gun powder, brainwash the children to the point where they would rather not escape from the horror unraveling around them. I personally believe anyone who has to succumb to such horrors and atrocities should not be prosecuted for the crimes they committed. Furthermore, I consider child soldiers different from ordinary child criminals. Let me explain. child soldiers, as I have mentioned earlier, are abducted and then forced into murdering innocent human beings. They have no choice, if they don’t fight their killed, if they fight they kill. Child criminals, on the other hand, are not forced into killing innocent civilians; they do it through a motive, often weak ones, such as killing someone for their money. Here I have just pointed a couple of strong differences between the two. In order to fully understand my reason for considering child soldiers different from child criminals let’s take at an example. In 1999, Lionel Tate, a 12 year old boy, was convicted for murdering a 6 year old girl he was babysitting. Unlike child soldiers, Lionel Tate was not forced into murdering. I do think children such as Lionel should be prosecuted, whereas child soldiers who are forcibly recruited shouldn’t be. I believe they should be taken to rehabilitation center in order for them to be reintegrated into society.
The main issue that develops from the idea of child soldiers is defining the minimal age of criminal responsibility. As mentioned earlier, child soldiers are generally considered children under the age of 18, however, despite this child soldiers younger than 18 are often prosecuted. International Criminal Court Article 26 prohibits the court from prosecuting anyone under the age of 18; however, in spite of this child soldiers are still trialed and jailed for their actions. For example, child soldiers such as Ishmael Beah from Sierra Leone and Emmaunuel Jal from Sudan were prosecuted and jailed, which really only strengthened the problems these children are facing. Emmanuel Jal was quoted saying: “I didn’t have a life as child. In five years as a fighting boy, what was in my heart was to kill as many Muslims as possible.” Children at this age should not have to succumb to such pain. Not only this, they were only 15 when they were prosecuted which means, the word of the law, they were still too young for prosecution.
Overall, I believe child soldiers should not be held responsible for their crimes. From the drugs to the alcohol, these children are placed under horrific circumstances which are preposterous. They kill to stay alive and those who try to escape are killed. Any child, any human, who has to live under such situations should not be convicted for their crimes.