Then we have this little gem straight from the Institute of Criminology....
"I
n all Australian jurisdictions the statutory minimum age of
criminal responsibility is now 10 years. Between the ages of 10
and 14 years, a further rebuttable presumption (known in
common law as doli incapax) operates to deem a child between the
ages of 10 and 14 incapable of committing a criminal act. Only if
the prosecution can rebut this presumption, by showing that the
accused child was able at the relevant time adequately to
distinguish between right and wrong, can a contested trial result
in conviction. From 14 to either 17 or 18 years (depending on
jurisdiction), young offenders may be held fully responsible for
their criminal acts but are subject to a different range of criminal
sanctions than adults committing the same offences (Warner
1997). Even without criminal liability, children may still be subject
to court-ordered welfare measures such as “care and control”
orders, along with a range of other orders in relation to residence,
contact, supervision and assessment."
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi181.pdfPretty sure I made a similar comment to the quoted section - way back in the debate, as my own opinion.
Bottom line anyway, my original comment stands, Adam Goodes chose not to pursue charges after speaking with the 13 year old girl. That is a big decision, because, regardless of the eventual outcome - that would have been a world of hassle for the young girl.
Any who still doubt, I sincerely trust that you never have to experience or have any dealings with Juvenille Justice - be it either as a victim or a parent of a perpetrator. The well being of a child committing an offense is genuinely considered, however, the process is still pretty scary for a lot of kids and can be quite frustrating for a lot of adult and youth or child victims.