Does it matter if this country locks up a few children? Especially when it is in the right?

Well, yes, it does. Nick Clegg has managed to persuade his Coalition partners that the children of asylum seekers should not be under lock and key like prisoners, a position vindicated in today’s judgement:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-12164411.

But there are many others who are locked up for committing crimes.

Why not, you may ask? It’s simple: does a two year old know the difference between right and wrong? Clearly not.

Does a five year old? Probably not.

A ten year old? Oh definitely. But perhaps not the difference between misbehaving and commiting a crime.

It is difficult to know when to stop but in effect we assume that a ten year old can be tried for crimes.

I would argue that we cannot normally be sure about the grasp a ten or even a thirteen year old can have as to the gravity of a particular act or omission and that as a result a completely different set of remedies, quite distinct from the criminal law, is appropriate for those under the age of fourteen. This would bring us into line with most of the rest of the world, which has ages of criminal responsibility of fourteen on average – often higher.

This does not mean that deplorable acts of violence or killing are ignored. Far from it. But it means that the state attempts to repair the damage that the parents or society have inflicted rather than transferring the offenders to a University of crime where they can never get a second chance.

Controversial? Not really: we all agree that children under the age of sixteen cannot know whether a sexual act is appropriate and thus prohibit by law intercourse below that age. Why on earth are all other acts treated as if they were committed by a reasoning mature adult?