Presentation College stabbing.

[FireBrand]

Student stabs student.
By Stacy Moore (Newsday).

TWO Form Four students of Presentation College, San Fernando, are warded at San Fernando General Hospital, one said to be in critical condition after an incident at the school yesterday in which one student stabbed the other and then tried to take his own life by slashing his wrists. The incident came on the heels of a recent anti-bullying campaign at the school.

According to reports, shortly after seven o’clock yesterday morning, the students including a 14-year-old of Gasparillo and a 15-year-old of Aripero in South Oropouche were involved in an altercation at the school’s basketball court. It was reported that the younger student stabbed the other in the back and chest. Newsday was told that only last week Friday, the younger student accused the elder one of bullying him. Reports are that the older student placed a cockroach in the school bag of the 14-year-old, knowing the latter to be terrified of insects. Sources said the 14-year-old schoolboy grew tired of being bullied by his 15-year-old schoolmate and armed himself with a knife before leaving home for school.

Yesterday morning before classes began, a group of boys were at the basketball court when an argument arose and the 14-year-old attacked the 15-year-old, stabbing him on the right side of his back and chest.

As the other student fell to the ground bleeding, the attacker turned the knife on himself and slit his right wrist. An alarm was raised and both boys were rushed to the San Fernando General Hospital.

The elder students was treated and placed in a medical ward while the 14-year-old was said to be undergoing surgery, up to press time, as the wound to his wrist was a serious one.

According to a statement from the school’s Acting Principal Dexter Mitchell, “A Form Four student was brought to him suffering from what appeared to be stab wounds. He was taken immediately to the San Fernando General Hospital where it was ascertained that he sustained a stab wound to the back and a superficial wound to the chest.

The student identified another student as being responsible for his injuries.

“The other student was found at the back of the school’s basketball court bleeding from an apparent self-inflicted wound. He was also rushed to the hospital and was scheduled for surgery to close the wound,” Mitchell said in the statement.

The principal added that Monsignor Christian Pereira, parish priest at Our Lady of Perpetual Help and chaplain of the college, visited the school and counselling sessions have been held for students and staff.

Senior Superintendent Cecil Santana of Southern Division and other officers of the San Fernando Police Station visited the school following the incident. Investigations are continuing.

[Tiresais]

Injured Pres students discharged
By LAUREL V WILLIAMS, T&T Newsday

THE TWO Presentation College, San Fernando students who were injured in a stabbing incident, have been discharged from the San Fernando General Hospital. Parents of the two boys, Newsday was told, have been in discussions with each other to see if criminal charges could avoided.

Yesterday, Education Minister Dr Tim Gopeesingh said that students at this school are like brothers to each other and therefore they ought to protect, love, cherish and respect one another as young men and continue doing so as adults, after their school life ends.

“Make friendships now that can stand the test for 40 and 50 years when you go on to become young men and senior men like myself. The friendship and love that I request you to develop as young ones with your classmates and college mates, will last for your life,” Gopeesingh told students during a visit yesterday to the school.

His visit came on the heel of the stabbing incident at the school compound on Monday which resulted in two students sustaining injuries. The students, ages 14 and 15, were both discharged from the San Fernando General Hospital on Tuesday evening.

Gopeesingh added that he has great appreciation for the school’s conduct over the years and referred to the stabbing incident as “some degree of dysfunctionality” which probably existed between two schoolmates.

The Minister reminded students that they are attending a college which nurtured two of this country’s prime ministers — Patrick Manning and Basdeo Panday. “So the morals, values, ethics and discipline of this school is no less than others and stands paramount and tall in the way in the traditions of your school. As Martin Luther King said, the longest journey begins with a short, single step,” Gopeesingh said. The Minister instructed the students to hold each other’s hands as he had them repeat a pledge to support, love and respect each other. In unison the schoolboys, holding hands repeated: “I pledge as a student of Presentation College to love and respect all my classmates and schoolmates from now on and so God help me, to carry this pledge through my school days.”

“All our students in Trinidad and Tobago are great...you will continue to do well, let us see if we can. We will have memories of it, now move forward. Aspire to be the best so even when though you fall short of it, you would have reached the stars...You are here to get your education and so grasp it,” the Minister added.

A police report stated that the altercation between the two schoolboys occurred at the school’s basketball court. The report added that the younger student stabbed the other in the back and chest. It further stated that last week the older student placed a cockroach in the school bag of the 14-year-old, who is said to be terrified of insects. The younger student had also accused the elder one of bullying him.

Commenting on the incident, school manager Msgr Christian Pereira acknowledged that all wrong behaviours have consequences. However he charged that there is a nobler level of relationship. He said that although the students are aware that there is a level of punishment, they realised that the guilt and the shame were enough suffering for them.

He explained that neither family wants to press charges but rather want to see how the experience can teach their respective sons to become better young men.

[Andre]

sound like a lover quarrel

[Tiresais]

The kid who got stabbed was bullying the kid who had the knife

[congo]

Didn't know that such violent action within a school's compound could result in no punishment whatsoever. i guess prestige schools really exists within their own worlds. Really makes you understand why such individuals when they grow up and get position in politics and government they really believe that they are untouchable.

[asylumseeker]

A non-litigious outcome is absolutely the correct and preferred path here.

[congo]

A non-litigious outcome is absolutely the correct and preferred path here.

There are other youths languishing in YTC for similar offenses. A child brings a knife past the school's gate and attempts to murder a fellow pupil and the parents say that they hope it's a lesson learnt? Had the boy died, we would have been looking at a completely different case. What if the boy had access to a firearm?

[Tiresais]

It's a hard one - clearly by definition a child has not the mental maturity to understand the full implication of their actions, but on the other hand how can such an act go unpunished? What example does that set to the child and the others? Is the lesson "if you bully a child then you get stabbed" is it "violence is an acceptable response to bullying", or is it "you're a child so you won't get punished much"? Obviously none of those lessons are the full picture, but again a child won't internalise the multitudes of lessons from a complex act like this. Lets hope that the children and their schoolmates get proper counselling and teaching so that they might understand, learn from, and ultimately move on from this.

[elan]

It's a hard one - clearly by definition a child has not the mental maturity to understand the full implication of their actions, but on the other hand how can such an act go unpunished? What example does that set to the child and the others? Is the lesson "if you bully a child then you get stabbed" is it "violence is an acceptable response to bullying", or is it "you're a child so you won't get punished much"? Obviously none of those lessons are the full picture, but again a child won't internalise the multitudes of lessons from a complex act like this. Lets hope that the children and their schoolmates get proper counselling and teaching so that they might understand, learn from, and ultimately move on from this.

Check this

[Tiresais]

It's a hard one - clearly by definition a child has not the mental maturity to understand the full implication of their actions, but on the other hand how can such an act go unpunished? What example does that set to the child and the others? Is the lesson "if you bully a child then you get stabbed" is it "violence is an acceptable response to bullying", or is it "you're a child so you won't get punished much"? Obviously none of those lessons are the full picture, but again a child won't internalise the multitudes of lessons from a complex act like this. Lets hope that the children and their schoolmates get proper counselling and teaching so that they might understand, learn from, and ultimately move on from this.

Disagree with this personally - I think it's not just to try a child as if they were an adult and I don't think that a life sentence is appropriate for a child.

Check this

[Bakes]

It's a hard one - clearly by definition a child has not the mental maturity to understand the full implication of their actions, but on the other hand how can such an act go unpunished? What example does that set to the child and the others? Is the lesson "if you bully a child then you get stabbed" is it "violence is an acceptable response to bullying", or is it "you're a child so you won't get punished much"? Obviously none of those lessons are the full picture, but again a child won't internalise the multitudes of lessons from a complex act like this. Lets hope that the children and their schoolmates get proper counselling and teaching so that they might understand, learn from, and ultimately move on from this.

Your conclusive pronouncement flies in the face of established science.  You should probably not be in such a rush to make such bold statements without facts.

By about age 9 or 10, they grasp the idea that we have to have rules so people can get along, and we don't have chaos. The more they function in the world outside the family, the more they have a need to learn structure and rules to deal with this outside world.

They go through a phase of being very preoccupied with rules, such as rules of games, and get very upset with each other if someone doesn't follow the rules.

Ages 12-13:

Ages 12 and 13 tend to be a transitional, awkward period: the child is making the transition from childhood to added responsibility and added independence, says Owens. However, if they're involved with a gang where they have to go through initiation, for example, they are often very independent and streetwise at an early age - 11, or even younger.

Middle teen years:

According to the work of a lot of developmental psychologists, says Farrow, for most normal teens there's a shift in early adolescence in the way the child thinks ("cognitive function", as they say), from concrete to abstract. It varies considerably, but usually this takes place between the ages of 12 and 15.

"That's where a person becomes able to understand the consequences of their behavior or actions," Farrow says. "Before that, they can't do this to the same degree. They're not as future oriented. They don't see cause and effect relationships very well."

This is but one source, but even a cursory search would confirm the developmental norms presented here.

[Tiresais]

It's a hard one - clearly by definition a child has not the mental maturity to understand the full implication of their actions, but on the other hand how can such an act go unpunished? What example does that set to the child and the others? Is the lesson "if you bully a child then you get stabbed" is it "violence is an acceptable response to bullying", or is it "you're a child so you won't get punished much"? Obviously none of those lessons are the full picture, but again a child won't internalise the multitudes of lessons from a complex act like this. Lets hope that the children and their schoolmates get proper counselling and teaching so that they might understand, learn from, and ultimately move on from this.

Your conclusive pronouncement flies in the face of established science.  You should probably not be in such a rush to make such bold statements without facts.

By about age 9 or 10, they grasp the idea that we have to have rules so people can get along, and we don't have chaos. The more they function in the world outside the family, the more they have a need to learn structure and rules to deal with this outside world.

They go through a phase of being very preoccupied with rules, such as rules of games, and get very upset with each other if someone doesn't follow the rules.

Ages 12-13:

Ages 12 and 13 tend to be a transitional, awkward period: the child is making the transition from childhood to added responsibility and added independence, says Owens. However, if they're involved with a gang where they have to go through initiation, for example, they are often very independent and streetwise at an early age - 11, or even younger.

Middle teen years:

According to the work of a lot of developmental psychologists, says Farrow, for most normal teens there's a shift in early adolescence in the way the child thinks ("cognitive function", as they say), from concrete to abstract. It varies considerably, but usually this takes place between the ages of 12 and 15.

"That's where a person becomes able to understand the consequences of their behavior or actions," Farrow says. "Before that, they can't do this to the same degree. They're not as future oriented. They don't see cause and effect relationships very well."

This is but one source, but even a cursory search would confirm the developmental norms presented here.

The key words here are "full implication". My argument is not that they lack a knowledge of right and wrong, but that by definition they can't consider the whole picture - partly because they would be considered an adult under law if this was true (if they could be considered fully accountable for their actions then why have a distinction between adult and child?), and all the research I am currently aware of states that we don't fully mature mentally until late teens for women and early 20's for men. Indeed, the BBC did an article on this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/emotions/teenagers/rebellion.shtml) and note that criminal activity tends to peak in your mid-teens before dropping off. I'm not sure that your article disagrees with my position - indeed I'm fairly sure the scientific consensus is that we are not emotionally or mentally mature in our teenage years - did you have some evidence to the contrary?

[Bakes]

The key words here are "full implication". My argument is not that they lack a knowledge of right and wrong, but that by definition they can't consider the whole picture - partly because they would be considered an adult under law if this was true (if they could be considered fully accountable for their actions then why have a distinction between adult and child?), and all the research I am currently aware of states that we don't fully mature mentally until late teens for women and early 20's for men. Indeed, the BBC did an article on this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/emotions/teenagers/rebellion.shtml) and note that criminal activity tends to peak in your mid-teens before dropping off. I'm not sure that your article disagrees with my position - indeed I'm fairly sure the scientific consensus is that we are not emotionally or mentally mature in our teenage years - did you have some evidence to the contrary?

Mental development occurs on a spectrum, in other words, in progressive stages.  At 14 you don't have the same level of mental maturity that you had at age 2, even though both humans at both ages are considered "children."  That spectrum continues, and at some point one is considered an adult.  For many western societies that is the age of 18, but children are considered mature enough for certain adult decisions/actions even before then.  Most children in the US can legally drive a car at age 16-17.  Similarly, most can marry at that age... some even younger.  In many non-Western societies, girls can marry as young as 12-13.  Not suggesting that that is right, but it shows that societal factors play a huge role in determining when a child is no longer considered a child.

In the eyes of the law all of these factors are taken into consideration, each situation is examined in isolation, and an individual decision is made in each case as to whether to charge an underaged person as an adult... or to charge them with a crime period.  There's a difference between "underaged" and being a "child" in terms of mental development, and I think that is the line that you're eliding over.  By your logic, any one who lacks "mental maturity" cannot be an adult, yet there are adults with mental developmental issues who we all agree are "adults".  Similarly, not all underaged individuals lack "mental maturity."  Mental maturity... again... is a process, not a milestone.  Your statement as to the scientific consensus couldn't be any more wrong.

[elan]

The key words here are "full implication". My argument is not that they lack a knowledge of right and wrong, but that by definition they can't consider the whole picture - partly because they would be considered an adult under law if this was true (if they could be considered fully accountable for their actions then why have a distinction between adult and child?), and all the research I am currently aware of states that we don't fully mature mentally until late teens for women and early 20's for men. Indeed, the BBC did an article on this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/emotions/teenagers/rebellion.shtml) and note that criminal activity tends to peak in your mid-teens before dropping off. I'm not sure that your article disagrees with my position - indeed I'm fairly sure the scientific consensus is that we are not emotionally or mentally mature in our teenage years - did you have some evidence to the contrary?

Mental development occurs on a spectrum, in other words, in progressive stages.  At 14 you don't have the same level of mental maturity that you had at age 2, even though both humans at both ages are considered "children."  That spectrum continues, and at some point one is considered an adult.  For many western societies that is the age of 18, but children are considered mature enough for certain adult decisions/actions even before then.  Most children in the US can legally drive a car at age 16-17.  Similarly, most can marry at that age... some even younger.  In many non-Western societies, girls can marry as young as 12-13.  Not suggesting that that is right, but it shows that societal factors play a huge role in determining when a child is no longer considered a child.

In the eyes of the law all of these factors are taken into consideration, each situation is examined in isolation, and an individual decision is made in each case as to whether to charge an underaged person as an adult... or to charge them with a crime period.  There's a difference between "underaged" and being a "child" in terms of mental development, and I think that is the line that you're eliding over.  By your logic, any one who lacks "mental maturity" cannot be an adult, yet there are adults with mental developmental issues who we all agree are "adults".  Similarly, not all underaged individuals lack "mental maturity."  Mental maturity... again... is a process, not a milestone.  Your statement as to the scientific consensus couldn't be any more wrong.

How do you factor in Statutory rape in light of the bold above?

Read this

[Tiresais]

The key words here are "full implication". My argument is not that they lack a knowledge of right and wrong, but that by definition they can't consider the whole picture - partly because they would be considered an adult under law if this was true (if they could be considered fully accountable for their actions then why have a distinction between adult and child?), and all the research I am currently aware of states that we don't fully mature mentally until late teens for women and early 20's for men. Indeed, the BBC did an article on this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/emotions/teenagers/rebellion.shtml) and note that criminal activity tends to peak in your mid-teens before dropping off. I'm not sure that your article disagrees with my position - indeed I'm fairly sure the scientific consensus is that we are not emotionally or mentally mature in our teenage years - did you have some evidence to the contrary?

Mental development occurs on a spectrum, in other words, in progressive stages.  At 14 you don't have the same level of mental maturity that you had at age 2, even though both humans at both ages are considered "children."  That spectrum continues, and at some point one is considered an adult.  For many western societies that is the age of 18, but children are considered mature enough for certain adult decisions/actions even before then.  Most children in the US can legally drive a car at age 16-17.  Similarly, most can marry at that age... some even younger.  In many non-Western societies, girls can marry as young as 12-13.  Not suggesting that that is right, but it shows that societal factors play a huge role in determining when a child is no longer considered a child.

In the eyes of the law all of these factors are taken into consideration, each situation is examined in isolation, and an individual decision is made in each case as to whether to charge an underaged person as an adult... or to charge them with a crime period.  There's a difference between "underaged" and being a "child" in terms of mental development, and I think that is the line that you're eliding over.  By your logic, any one who lacks "mental maturity" cannot be an adult, yet there are adults with mental developmental issues who we all agree are "adults".  Similarly, not all underaged individuals lack "mental maturity."  Mental maturity... again... is a process, not a milestone.  Your statement as to the scientific consensus couldn't be any more wrong.

I agree that maturity is not a binary concept, but my argument still stands - clearly no one defined as a child could understand the full implications of their actions and thus could not be expected in a just system to bear all of the responsibility or punishment. A life sentence pretty much implies this.

In terms of those who lack mental maturity - again mentally they are not adults and thus cannot be tried as a fully-cognitive adult. It's not that they are 'adult' but that they lack the mental maturity of an adult and cannot thus be expected in a just system to bear the full weight of the punishment - they are not accountable for their actions. That's why someone found to be legally insane cannot be tried and punished as if they are - they must be committed to psychiatric treatment for both their safety and the public's.

I think possibly there's a broader argument on the arbitrary nature of the designation 'adult' that might underpin the disagreement. As you rightly point out, it's not necessarily the case that a 16 year old is less mature than a 20 year old - it differs by individual cases. However, the court itself probably cannot make an accurate assessment of the maturity of the individual - this is a quantity that is very hard to test. Instead, the proximity to the age of socially constructed 'adulthood' is used as the barometer. Within this framework, I argue that a nation that tries a child as an adult is contradicting their own framework that guarantees the rights of children, and in my opinion is guilty of a rights violation.

In terms of the scientific consensus, I'm not sure what you're arguing if you disagree with that - is your argument that people mature at different rates and thus it's feasible that a 14 year old might be as mature as a 20 year old? In that case I guess I agree, but we're not making laws on an individual basis nor is the scientific community denying the possibility of outliers. Instead, the consensus is that the general age of maturity (the age to which we might expect the vast majority of individuals to be mature) is between the late teens and early twenties. This is (and should be in my opinion) the basis for which to make the distinction between adult and child.

[fishs]

 Kids stabbing each other, getting buss head , beat up in schools for years.

 Punishment was meted out the old fashioned way, plenty licks, suspension etc.

Now that crime so endemic situations like this one becomes big news, nothing to do with prestige schools.

 My little brother when he was 6 carried a razor blade to school and sliced a bigger kid with it. Nobody at home knew about the bullying he was getting and nobody from the school was dealing with it... I was just a little older but I don't remember police getting involved.

 

[asylumseeker]

A non-litigious outcome is absolutely the correct and preferred path here.

There are other youths languishing in YTC for similar offenses. A child brings a knife past the school's gate and attempts to murder a fellow pupil and the parents say that they hope it's a lesson learnt? Had the boy died, we would have been looking at a completely different case. What if the boy had access to a firearm?

1. Where you get attempt to murder from? Yuh sure?

2. Re: had the boy died. Had death resulted, discretion would lie elsewhere. It would be a completely different case because the circumstances and considerations would be different.

3. Re: access to a firearm. Who is to say that he did not?  What do you know about the knife?

4. Ah want to hear more about the youths languishing in YTC.

[Bakes]

1. Where you get attempt to murder from? Yuh sure?

That is clear attempted murder.

[Bakes]

How do you factor in Statutory rape in light of the bold above?

Read this

You don't. 

Statutory rape is dealth with in a completely separate and isolated capacity. There is not consent to sex with a minor... at least not in the US.  The only way to avoid jail is if the older person having sex with the minor, is themself a minor.. and even so, they can't be more than 4 years older than the victim in most cases.  So a 17-year old boy (minor) having sex with a 13-year old won't be charged with the statutory rape (it could still be 'regular' rape) of a minor, but he will if the victim is more than 4 years younger than himself.

[asylumseeker]

1. Where you get attempt to murder from? Yuh sure?

That is clear attempted murder.

State your case.

[elan]

How do you factor in Statutory rape in light of the bold above?

Read this

You don't. 

Statutory rape is dealth with in a completely separate and isolated capacity. There is not consent to sex with a minor... at least not in the US.  The only way to avoid jail is if the older person having sex with the minor, is themself a minor.. and even so, they can't be more than 4 years older than the victim in most cases.  So a 17-year old boy (minor) having sex with a 13-year old won't be charged with the statutory rape (it could still be 'regular' rape) of a minor, but he will if the victim is more than 4 years younger than himself.

Ok, so daiz what I trying to get at. How can you say when it comes to a crime such as shooting, robbery etc, a "minor" can be charged as an adult on a per case basis, but yet in a sexual situation a child cannot make such a decision.

How do you juxtapose this

 

It's a hard one - clearly by definition a child has not the mental maturity to understand the full implication of their actions, but on the other hand how can such an act go unpunished? What example does that set to the child and the others? Is the lesson "if you bully a child then you get stabbed" is it "violence is an acceptable response to bullying", or is it "you're a child so you won't get punished much"? Obviously none of those lessons are the full picture, but again a child won't internalise the multitudes of lessons from a complex act like this. Lets hope that the children and their schoolmates get proper counselling and teaching so that they might understand, learn from, and ultimately move on from this.

Your conclusive pronouncement flies in the face of established science.  You should probably not be in such a rush to make such bold statements without facts.

By about age 9 or 10, they grasp the idea that we have to have rules so people can get along, and we don't have chaos. The more they function in the world outside the family, the more they have a need to learn structure and rules to deal with this outside world.

They go through a phase of being very preoccupied with rules, such as rules of games, and get very upset with each other if someone doesn't follow the rules.

Ages 12-13:

Ages 12 and 13 tend to be a transitional, awkward period: the child is making the transition from childhood to added responsibility and added independence, says Owens. However, if they're involved with a gang where they have to go through initiation, for example, they are often very independent and streetwise at an early age - 11, or even younger.

Middle teen years:

According to the work of a lot of developmental psychologists, says Farrow, for most normal teens there's a shift in early adolescence in the way the child thinks ("cognitive function", as they say), from concrete to abstract. It varies considerably, but usually this takes place between the ages of 12 and 15.

"That's where a person becomes able to understand the consequences of their behavior or actions," Farrow says. "Before that, they can't do this to the same degree. They're not as future oriented. They don't see cause and effect relationships very well."

This is but one source, but even a cursory search would confirm the developmental norms presented here.

[Bakes]

State your case.

Intent doesn't matter... a double stabbing to the torso manifests "reckless indifference to human life" (the actor knew or should have known that such an act poses a threat to the life of the victim, but acted anyways), sufficient to form the mens rea necessary for attempted murder.

[Bakes]

Ok, so daiz what I trying to get at. How can you say when it comes to a crime such as shooting, robbery etc, a "minor" can be charged as an adult on a per case basis, but yet in a sexual situation a child cannot make such a decision.

How do you juxtapose this

The societies in question have adopted a public policy position that deliberately does not account for the mental developmental posture of the young person.  The threat of long-term harm and the potential detriment to both the minor and society justifies taking the consent factor out of that child's hands.  However when the concern isn't harm to the child his/herself... but harm to someone else, then the willful conduct of that child must be factored in.

Just because we say you can't drive before 17, vote before 18 or drink before 21... that doesn't give you a pass to go around committing crimes with impunity.

[asylumseeker]

Didn't know that such violent action within a school's compound could result in no punishment whatsoever. i guess prestige schools really exists within their own worlds. Really makes you understand why such individuals when they grow up and get position in politics and government they really believe that they are untouchable.

RE: the "non-litigious outcome" comment I offered previously ...

In every case where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.

4.8 It has never been the rule that a prosecution will automatically take place once the evidential stage is met. A prosecution will usually take place unless the prosecutor is satisfied that there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which outweigh those tending in favour. In some cases the prosecutor may be satisfied that the public interest can be properly served by offering the offender the opportunity to have the matter dealt with by an out-of-court disposal rather than bringing a prosecution.

4.9 When deciding the public interest, prosecutors should consider each of the questions set out below in paragraphs 4.12 a) to g) so as to identify and determine the relevant public interest factors tending for and against prosecution. These factors, together with any public interest factors set out in relevant guidance or policy issued by the DPP, should enable prosecutors to form an overall assessment of the public interest.

...

4.12

... In deciding whether a prosecution is required in the public interest, prosecutors should take into account the views expressed by the victim about the impact that the offence has had. In appropriate cases, this may also include the views of the victim’s family.

...

d) Was the suspect under the age of 18 at the time of the offence?

The criminal justice system treats children and young people differently from adults and significant weight must be attached to the age of the suspect if they are a child or young person under 18. The best interests and welfare of the child or young person must be considered including whether a prosecution is likely to have an adverse impact on his or her future prospects that is disproportionate to the seriousness of the offending. Prosecutors must have regard to the principal aim of the youth justice system which is to prevent offending by children and young people. Prosecutors must also have regard to the obligations arising under the United Nations 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child.

As a starting point, the younger the suspect, the less likely it is that a prosecution is required.

However, there may be circumstances which mean that notwithstanding the fact that the suspect is under 18, a prosecution is in the public interest. These include where the offence committed is serious, where the suspect’s past record suggests that there are no suitable alternatives to prosecution, or where the absence of an admission means that out-of-court disposals which might have addressed the offending behaviour are not available.

...

e) What is the impact on the community?

The greater the impact of the offending on the community, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required. In considering this question, prosecutors should have regard to how community is an inclusive term and is not restricted to communities defined by location.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/