Minimum Age Of Criminal Responsibility Research Articles

Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Kenya

This paper investigates why and how Kenya reviewed its minimum age of criminal responsibility while enacting the Children Act of 2022. The Act creates a range; a lower level of the minimum age of criminal responsibility of 12 years and a higher level of 14 years. In the preceding regime of laws, the minimum age for criminal responsibility was 8 and 12 years, respectively. The paper interrogates how Kenya arrived at the ages of 12 and 14. In doing so, the paper will examine the foundations of the minimum age of criminal responsibility and some of the international legal instruments affecting the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

Child-friendly justice and children's rights from criminal cases; Islamic Law notes

This article aimed to discuss the Islamic law notes on child-friendly justice and the importance of protecting children's rights during the juvenile process. The reform of Juvenile Justice in Indonesia was based on the UN convention, where on January 26, 1990, in New York, the Indonesian Government signed the 1989 Convention on the Rights of Children. Thus, to protect children through criminal law, paying attention to the principles in the Convention on the Rights of the Child has been the norm. The Child Protection Law in Indonesia has regulated the age limit for a child who can be held accountable. The existence of provisions regarding the minimum age limit for children in the law is what is required by international documents, especially regarding the minimum age of criminal responsibility, namely at least 12 years. Such provisions are parallel to The Beijing Rules, which recommend an age limit that is not too low. The problem is the provision of the law that children under 12 years (meaning between 8-12 years) can still be processed for trial and can be subject to action. Even at the age of 8 years, it is still possible to process. The problem is whether the eight-year age limit needs to be higher. Even though they were not punished and were only subject to action, the experience during the process of being submitted to trial did not bring stigma and negative impacts for children of young age. Based on Islamic law notes, this article found that child-friendly justice

Mediating Coalitions and the Politics of Civil Rights in the Philippines under Duterte

ABSTRACT The Duterte administration in the Philippines displayed broad hostility towards civil rights. Yet its approach to specific civil rights issues varied significantly. This paper analyses this variation by focusing on two cases: the lowering of the minimum age of criminal responsibility and extra-judicial killings in the war on drugs. In both cases, Duterte and his allies sought to enact and implement policies that infringed civil rights, yet they only succeeded in the latter. The nature and role of mediating coalitions — configurations of actors that opposed, supported, or disengaged from efforts by Duterte and his allies to undermine civil rights — were the key determinants of this variation. The government backed down on lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility because unified rights groups were supported by sections of the oligarchic elite. But it conducted, incited, and persisted with extra-judicial killings in the war on drugs due to fragmentation among rights groups and an absence of significant support for these groups from oligarchic elites. This variation has significant implications for how scholars understand the politics of civil rights in the Philippines, particularly during the Duterte presidency, as well as strategies to better protect civil rights in the country.

Reflection on Lowering the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility

The amendment to the Criminal Law (Xi) lowered the lower limit of the age of criminal responsibility for minors by introducing theories such as flexibility theory and reduction theory. However, regarding the issue of special cruel means and bad circumstances, there is no specific provision and explanation in the new age of juvenile criminal responsibility in China, which leads to the expansion of the discretion of the legislature and the judiciary. In order to reduce the juvenile crime rate and punish and prevent juvenile delinquents, we should revise the juvenile delinquents in law to fill up the deficiency of compulsory education in prison, perfect the system of special education correction and establish the system of compulsory parental education. Adopting welfare protection has the function of education and correction for juvenile delinquents who are below the lower limit of the age of criminal responsibility.

New system responses to juvenile crime

AbstractIn the Nordic countries, social work and child welfare interventions have traditionally played a central role in preventing children’s involvement in future crime. Hence, child welfare authorities, rather than the criminal justice system, have handled cases with children involved in crime. However, in 2019, Denmark enacted a new policy reform that constitutes a radical break with this long-standing tradition of welfarism. The policy reform introduced court-like proceedings for children under the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Cases concerning juveniles aged 10 to 17 who commit serious offences are now handled by Youth Crime Boards and the Youth Probation Service. In this article, we explore the complexities of these new responses to juvenile crime in Denmark. We do this by combining quantitative analyses of administrative data with qualitative interviews with case managers. We argue that the new Danish system is highly complex and targets a diverse group of children with punitive measures. With this, we hope to provide insights relevant to policy makers and practitioners implementing new juvenile crime prevention strategies. 

Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility: lessons from the Scottish experience

ABSTRACT This paper explores the history of the reforms in Scotland which led up to the raising of the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) in 2019, from age 8 to 12. It also showcases research evidence, from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime, which indicates that there is both an ethical and empirical case for raising the MACR further, to at least 15. As we will argue, the Scottish experience demonstrates the dangers for governments of deploying punitive narratives around youth crime as a means of building political capacity. While progressive policy transformations, aimed at avoiding the criminalisation of children, have been hard won, fears that such practices are ‘soft options’ that will drive up youth offending are unfounded. Edinburgh Study findings demonstrate that the lives of children involved in serious offending are blighted by poverty and early trauma: factors beyond their capacity to control. They also demonstrate that diversionary and holistic approaches to dealing with children’s needs are associated with reductions in offending. Consequently, whilst the Scottish experience should give confidence to policy-makers about the positive impact that raising the MACR brings, we conclude that this is only a minimum necessary step in delivering justice for children.

The Interpretation of Age of Criminal Responsibility for Juvenile Offenders from the Perspectives of Islamic Jurisprudence (Fiqh) and Malaysian Law

Criminal offences still exist in Malaysia, whether minor or severe, including offences under Sharia law such as khalwat (close proximity) and civil offenses like causing harm to others. The issue of crime becomes even more concerning for society when it involves offenders among children. Therefore, the provisions for punishment of these offenses constitute one of the government's efforts to reduce the crime rate. Consequently, the minimum age of criminal responsibility needs to be thoroughly examined to ensure the well-being of these juvenile offenders is preserved in accordance with the age limits stipulated by the United Nations. In addition to reviewing the age limit of juvenile offenders from the perspective of Malaysian law, the determination of age limits from the standpoint of Islamic Sharia law (fiqh) is also examined. To this end, a qualitative method using documentary analysis will be employed. Data analysis will be conducted descriptively and thematically. The study's findings indicate various opinions regarding determining the age limit for child offenders. Inconsistencies in this age limit occur between Sharia and civil courts in Malaysia. Differences in assessing the age of children can also be observed when compared with fiqh provisions, namely the views of the four primary schools of thought. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that the age limit for children, which lacks harmonisation, does not lead to any injustice within the legal framework.

Can lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility be justified? A critical review of China's recent amendment

AbstractIn 2021, China amended its law on the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR), lowering the MACR of two specified offences to twelve years. As a result, China now has three different levels of MACR for different offences. Based on the position in China, this article argues that while lowering the MACR against the international trend can be justified as a necessary measure to tackle serious crimes committed by children, creating different levels of MACR based on the types of crime is wrong in principle. This article further considers the classic dilemma in setting an absolute MACR, which results in either freeing the guilty or convicting the innocent. It is argued that setting a relatively low MACR accompanied by robust safeguards of doli incapax, child immaturity defence, diversion and wider sentencing options would allow a better assessment of children's culpability and better serve the interests of justice. It is also suggested that lowering the MACR will not unjustifiably undermine children's rights if the juvenile justice system could ensure only those truly culpable could be convicted and that the option of prosecution is reserved as a last resort.

The Logic and Value of the Presumption of Doli Incapax (Failing That, an Incapacity Defence).

Children who do not understand the serious wrongness of their actions lack criminal capacity and cannot be convicted. At common law, children under seven are deemed to lack criminal capacity, children over 14 possess full capacity and children between seven and 14 are rebuttably presumed to lack capacity; the prosecution must prove capacity beyond reasonable doubt. Australia has increased the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) to 10 and is considering a further increase. England & Wales and Northern Ireland have raised the MACR to 10 but have abolished the rebuttable presumption: at age 10, all children are assigned full criminal capacity. This article agrees with international calls for the MACR to be raised but argues that it is more important that the rebuttable presumption should be retained and extended. Children's brains and decision-making capacities continue to develop throughout their teenage years at different rates. The rebuttable presumption provides individualised justice for children facing developmental difficulties. To wrongfully convict a child who lacks capacity will unjustly damage their life chances. Where a child does have capacity, a variety of evidence may be available to the prosecution to prove it. If the prosecution fails to discharge the burden, the child should be acquitted. The acquittal may be mistaken, but this error is far less harmful than a wrongful conviction.

Reflections on Lowering the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: With Comments to Article 1 of the Amendment to Criminal Law (XI)

The revision of the age of criminal responsibility is a major breakthrough in the Amendment to the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (XI) (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment to Criminal Law (XI)). The first provision of the amendment reduces the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 14 to 12, which has aroused great controversy in the society and the academic circle. This move is a legislative response to the phenomenon of vicious violent crimes committed by minors and a reasonable consideration of the public's passionate public opinion, but there are still some problems worth discussing in its provisions. At present, there are many theoretical studies on the age of criminal responsibility in the academic circle. Based on this, this paper systematically sorts out the social background, theoretical viewpoints and extraterritorial legislation of the age of criminal responsibility, compares and analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of different theories, and refers to the legislative experience of countries with the minimum age of criminal responsibility under 14, and accordingly puts forward relevant legislative adjustment suggestions and supporting measures to improve them, expecting to promoting the continuous optimization of China's juvenile crime prevention and control system and reducing the juvenile crime rate.

Old enough to offend but not to buy a hamster: the argument for raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility

The minimum age of criminal responsibility in Australia is 10 years. The topic of raising the age of criminal responsibility remains a fraught and challenging field of both study and thought. Despite overwhelming evidence to support an increase in the minimum age of criminal responsibility, there remains a resolute opposition in the majority of States in Australia that this age should be raised. However, the grounds for reconsidering the current position are indeed compelling. This paper expounds the persuasive arguments for raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility by examining the current scientific evidence and opinion. Considerations are explored and the relevant literature examined using the author’s framework that decisions should be just, scientific, not racist, humane, cost-effective and generally not ludicrous. Principles for an alternative approach to criminalisation and for managing the harmful behaviour of children are then offered.

Measuring progress and plugging gaps: Towards a child-friendly criminal justice system in Zimbabwe

This article takes stock of the progress made and challenges confronted by Zimbabwe in domesticating international child justice standards relating to general principles of children’s rights, the minimum age of criminal responsibility, and pre-trial detention. It demonstrates that the country has largely incorporated general principles of children’s rights and their implications for child justice norms, standards and practices at the domestic level. In addition, the article posits that the legislature should raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility to at least 14 years to harmonise domestic law with regional and international child law. In the context of pre-trial detention, it is argued that the constitutionalisation of the twin principles of detention as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period are designed to ensure that an alleged child offender is solely detained if there are no less restrictive means for securing the child’s attendance during trial proceedings. It is also shown that pre-diversion assessments of child offenders enable key players in the justice system to craft individualised, evidence-based interventions that respond to the treatment needs of each child offender. Finally, the article reiterates that the state should urgently enact the Child Justice Bill, allocate more resources, and build relevant infrastructure for pre-trial, child-friendly justice to become a reality.

Problems of unification of criminal liability individuals globally

The article analyzes the problems of unification at the global level of the minimum age of criminal responsibility, types and categories of crimes committed by an individual, as well as issues of standardization of the types, nature and upper limits of criminal punishment. The problem posed has a long history. It was the subject of permanent discussion in the early twentieth century. So, starting Since 1928, the question of the unification of criminal responsibility has been periodically considered within the walls of the League of Nations. But, as the analysis shows, they were unsuccessful, including because these attempts were selective in nature and concerned only certain types of crimes. In today's globalizing world, when the fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen are the subject of regulation not only national legislation, but also International Law, there is an urgent need for global unification of not only all types and categories of crimes committed by individuals, but also the minimum age of criminal responsibility, types of criminal penalties, its upper limits and methods of implementation.

Study on Lowering the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility

Study on Lowering the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility

촉법소년 상한연령 하향 인식에의 영향요인 - 소년사법 실무전문가들을 중심으로 -

Opinions on lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility below 14 are divided, even among juvenile justice experts. Analyzing survey results from four working-level juvenile justice expert groups - school police officers, juvenile investigators, juvenile probation officers, and teachers in juvenile training schools, this study aims to explore their perceptions on changing the age of criminal responsibility and influencing factors on them. Of the 278 working-level experts on juvenile justice who participated in the survey, 225 (80.9%) agreed to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility: The effect of the perceptions on maturity of youth, unity between laws regarding age, social and international trends in juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice to the positions of juvenile justice experts on lowering the age of criminal responsibility are not statistically significant, including personal characteristics of the experts - such as age, working area, length of work period. The statistically significant factors affecting perceptions of the experts on lowering the age of criminal responsibility, on the other hand, are gender and role in the juvenile justice system, the interpretation on the purpose clause of juvenile law, and consent to the claim that juvenile delinquency is getting more serious. The analysis results implies that the underlying reason why most working-level juvenile justice experts agrees to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility is that strengthening punishment for juvenile delinquents rather than strengthening protection is needed, which is fully contrary to the purpose clause of Korean Juvenile Law.

Too Young for the System: What the United States Can Learn from International Law on the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility

Too Young for the System: What the United States Can Learn from International Law on the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility

Act now: raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility

ABSTRACT There has been a long-standing debate throughout Australia about the age at which a child should be subjected to criminal proceedings for wrongful behaviour. In February 2019, an Attorneys-General Working Group was formed with the task of reviewing the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) and making recommendations for reform across Australia. So far, no decision has been made about whether and to what age the MACR should be raised. Now individual jurisdictions are pushing for change rather than waiting for a uniform national approach. This article examines the ongoing debate in Australia and considers what reforms should be undertaken in relation to the MACR. It endorses states and territories acting individually to raise the MACR to at least 14 but preferably higher. It also proposes that if the MACR is raised only to 12 or 14 there is a need for doli incapax or some other defence for older children.

Premolar maturity index (IPM) for indicating legal age 12 years in a sample of south Indian children – A digital pantomographic study

Legal age of 12 years has been set as the minimum age of criminal responsibility in many countries. This paper concerned a method for predicting the legal age 12 years based on the maturation of lower first and second premolars. The sample consisted of 900 digital pantomographs of south Indian children (450 males, 450 females) aged between 8 and 16 years. Among them, 580 DPTs were used as test sample and 320 DPTs as validation sample. New cut-offs at the age threshold 12 years were determined by using the measurement of open apices in first premolars (IPM1 < 0.10), second premolars (IPM2 < 0.14) and the combined method (IPM1 + IPM2 < 0.12). The sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp) and posttest probability (PTP) were established. For IPM1 < 0.10, the Se, Sp and PTP were 92.4 %, 91.3 % and 91.1 % for males and 90.8 %, 87 % and 86.5 % for females. For IPM2 < 0.14, they were 92.6 %, 93.6 % and 93.4 % for males and 91.5 %, 83.1 % and 83.4 % for females. And, for the combined predictor (IPM1 + IPM2 < 0.12), these values were 92.6 %, 94.8 % and 94.6 % and 90.5 %, 84.9 % and 84.7 % in males and females respectively. The best score of positive predictive value and specificity was obtained for males with the combined predictor (IPM1 + IPM2 < 0.12) and with single predictor (IPM1 < 0.10) for females. To conclude, the combined predictor has resulted in better discrimination in males, while in females the single predictor (IMP1 < 0.10) did slightly better. Further studies are warranted to test the combination of dental and skeletal indicators for the prediction of 12 years in the studied population.

Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility as Part of Criminal Policies

The increase in peer violence and juvenile delinquency from year to year has kept the question of minimum age of criminal responsibility open around the world. States, not only in different parts of the world, but also within smaller regions territorially connecting them, have been developing various criminal legal responses to this question. Reasons behind such a variety lie in circumstances of economic, social, cultural, religious, political, and even political nature. In theory and practice, two opposing concepts can be distinguished – the so-called repressive and holistic concepts. Advocates of the first concept believe that a strict criminal policy is the safest way toward decreasing criminality among children and minors. On the other side, supporters of the holistic approach believe children in early age cannot understand the meaning of their actions, that is why lowering the age of criminal responsibility would introduce children to the criminal legal system too early when society could take timely measures that would prevent children from adopting a criminal pattern of behaviour. Using the comparative law method, as well as other qualitative and quantitative methods necessary for a productive analysis and deduction of valid conclusions, in this paper we aim to point up key aspects of the differences between the repressive and holistic approach to determining the minimum age of criminal responsibility. The final result is a firmly established belief that it is necessary to give advantage to the approach that does not see the children and minors drawn into the criminal milieu as part of the problem but as part of the solution.

Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14 years.

At 10 years of age, Australia and New Zealand have one of the lowest ages for criminal responsibility across the developed world. Evidence shows that children under 14 years of age are not mature enough to be considered criminally responsible people. Children of this age do not have the ability to advocate for themselves within the criminal justice system, which is systematically biased in how it deals with the youngest offenders. The over-representation of Indigenous youth within the justice system is seen at its most extreme in the 10-14 years age group, and contact with the criminal justice system at this age is strongly associated with re-offending, and is considered 'criminogenic'. Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility is likely to decrease overall rates of youth offending, and reduce the over-representation of Indigenous children at all points of contact with the criminal justice system.