Minimum Age Of Criminal Responsibility Research Articles

Public Opinion on the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: The Role of Cognition and Emotions

Given that young people have a limited capacity to recognize the unlawfulness of their actions, the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) presents an important subject of professional and political inquiry. In addition to the natural and legal sciences, public opinion is confirmed to influence the decision-making of legislators in the matter of criminal policy. Research on determinants of public opinion on the MACR is relatively scarce; however, some studies focusing on punitiveness in general suggest that it is influenced by both cognitive assessments as well as emotions and beliefs. Using a representative sample of Czech citizens, this study finds public support for a lower MACR to be particularly driven by their perception of children crime trend, mediated through people's negative attitude toward the behaviour of today's children.

From ‘raise the age’ to ‘raise the awareness’: how knowledge affects public opinion of the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Western Australia

ABSTRACT The minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) in Western Australia is 10 years old. While the negative impacts of early contact with justice systems have been well-documented and have resulted in calls to raise the age, research had not examined the public views of MACR in Western Australia. This article presents a novel examination of the knowledge and perceptions of the MACR with a sample of the West Australian public (n = 69). Findings from the semi-structured interviews revealed low levels of knowledge about the MACR, some reacted with surprise when provided with the information. Participants’ views shifted in that they expected children knew ‘right from wrong’, however, they acknowledged discrepancies with other age-dependent social milestones and that the MACR was inconsistent with developmental maturity levels. They supported rehabilitative options unless the crime was serious and concluded the MACR needed to be assessed and applied proportionally on a case-by-case basis so that children who had offended could be held accountable. Finally, most participants supported raising the age from 10 to between 12 and 18. The study thus reaffirms the importance of increasing public awareness of the issue for the success of the ‘raise the age’ campaign in Western Australia.

Lived experiences of youth justice detention in Australia: reframing the institution in a decarcerated state

ABSTRACT This article reconsiders youth justice detention in the Australian context by exploring the lived experiences of youth detention in New South Wales (NSW) and the Northern Territory (NT). In drawing upon narratives from children and young people who have experienced detention, this article argues for shifting youth detention away from highly securitised environments, instead presenting an alternative and provisional relational rights-based framework and approach. This reimagined youth justice detaining environment builds upon the current efforts to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility across Australia to 14, and other significant measures of decarceration. This dramatically limited and transformed carceral environment would actively seek to support these young people to reach their potential through nurturing their capabilities in a trauma-informed, therapeutic and relational rights-based environment, and then linking them in with highly resourced long-term transition pathways away from the justice system.

Advancing knowledge about criminal justice and mental health

Advancing knowledge about criminal justice and mental health Researchers with expertise in criminal law, philosophy, psychiatry and psychology are combining their knowledge to explore how mental disorders are approached within criminal law and contribute to better legal and forensic practices. Current criminal justice systems are based on the premise that human beings are responsible agents that can be held accountable for their actions. However, most criminal justice systems have legal doctrines recognising that there are exceptions when an individual should not be considered criminally accountable. A ubiquitous practice is that children under the minimum age of criminal responsibility are not subject to punishment. Similarly, most countries limit criminal responsibility for offenders with mental disorders and disabilities. However, the question of who should be held criminally accountable and who should not is highly controversial, and a subject of debate. The same applies to what role psychological and psychiatric experts should have in criminal proceedings.

Examining the characteristics of children who experience contact with the youth justice system in Queensland: implications for the minimum age of criminal responsibility

ABSTRACT In jurisdictions such as Queensland, where the minimum age of criminal responsibility (i.e., 10 years of age) is out of step with international law and Australian human rights obligations, there are significant concerns about the criminalisation of children. These concerns include the potential for ensnaring young people, particularly First Nations children, into the criminal justice system rather than addressing their underlying needs. We use a birth cohort of individuals registered as born in Queensland in 1990 and followed up to age 24 years to examine the characteristics of young people who experienced their first youth justice system contact between ages 10 and 16 years. First Nations youth were significantly overrepresented among those with the earliest ages of contact (i.e., 10–13 years). Early youth justice contact was largely for minor and less serious forms of offending (i.e., property-related), but those with the earliest ages of onset typically went on to experience more persistent and serious offending outcomes up to age 24 years. Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility alongside the implementation of culturally relevant early intervention, diversion and support services is likely to significantly reduce the overrepresentation of First Nations people in the criminal justice system.

Examining the characteristics of children who experience contact with the youth justice system in Queensland: Implications for the minimum age of criminal responsibility

Examining the characteristics of children who experience contact with the youth justice system in Queensland: Implications for the minimum age of criminal responsibility

The Dilemma and Solution of Juvenile Delinquency – Reflection on the Murder of a 13-year-old Boy in China

On March 10, 2024, a 13-year-old junior high school student in Handan City, Hebei Province, China was killed and buried by three classmates under the age of 14. The method of committing the crime was cruel and had a negative social impact, once again bringing topics such as "juvenile delinquency" and "lowering the age of criminal responsibility" to the hot search. Since entering the new era, with the rapid development of the social economy, minors have shown an overall trend of "precocious puberty". The problem of juvenile delinquency and violence has also become increasingly severe, causing adverse social impacts. According to data released by the Supreme People's Procuratorate of China, juvenile delinquency in China is characterized by a sharp increase in the number of crimes, a clear trend towards younger age groups, and cruel criminal methods. The Eleventh Amendment to the Criminal Law, which came into effect in March 2021, lowered the age of criminal responsibility and individually lowered the statutory minimum age of criminal responsibility to 12 years old. Therefore, this case may become the first case to hold young minors accountable for crimes after the age of criminal responsibility has been lowered, which is of great significance to the construction of the rule of law and judicial practice. In practice, we should clarify the situation of "heinous circumstances" stipulated in the Amendment to the Criminal Law (XI), and establish an independent juvenile justice system to comprehensively and effectively correct and prevent the misconduct and illegal behavior of minors, rather than simply lowering the age of criminal responsibility. At the same time, reduce excessive interference of online public opinion in judicial trials.

A review of arguments for raising the age of criminal responsibility

ABSTRACT This paper explores the policy debate in Queensland on raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR). The age currently remains at 10, despite reform in other Australian jurisdictions and recommendations to the contrary in a 2018 report from a highly regarded former Police Commissioner. In 2021, a parliamentary committee reviewed a private member’s Bill on the MACR and received 74 public submissions from over 300 individuals, all supporting raising the age. Despite this, the Bill was defeated. This paper reports on a content analysis and reflexive thematic analysis of those submissions to understand (a) the views of a broad range of Queensland organisations and individuals about the MACR and (b) their rationales for supporting raising the age. We found 13 such rationales, with a particular focus on the need for more extensive, appropriate and better integrated services for vulnerable children rather than punitive criminal justice responses, and a concern for worsening impacts on First Nations young people. These findings illustrate community support for both raising the MACR and adopting more evidence-based approaches to youth justice, accompanied by improved approaches to service support. We also briefly consider the counter-arguments against raising the MACR advanced in the Committee’s report.

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.

U prilog snižavanja starosne granice krivične odgovornosti - drugačiji pogled na "večitu dilemu"

The journal Crimen 3/2023 published an article entitled "Lowering the age limit of criminal responsibility: an eternal dilemma?" in which the author presents arguments against this solution. The aim of this analysis is to provide the opposite arguments, in favor of lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility, so that the reader can make his judgment based on the pro and contra argumentation. Opponents of lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) mostly refer to the argument of "accepted international standards" as well as to the humane, altruistic statement that children perpetrators of criminal offenses are most often victims of poor socio-economic conditions that "force them into crime", so that they should not be punished, but that they should be helped. In the first part of the paper are analysed international standards and MACR in European and non-European countries. We are proving that international standards regarding MACR does not exists, but MACR is different in different countries. The structure of juvenile crime in Serbia is analysed in the second part. Statistical data show that juvenile crime in recent years is increasingly violent and brutal, what confirm the thesis that MACR should be lowered. The third part of the paper deals with juveniles sanctions. They are relatively mild and do not differ much from the measures of social protection, except that they are not imposed by social services but by judicial authorities, whose authority can only act encouragingly and frighteningly on the child to stop with criminal behaviour. In this sense, we do not see that lowering the MACR would drastically "deteriorate" the position of children, except that perhaps the fear of "criminal responsibility" would deter them from committing criminal offenses. In the end, we deal with the psycho-physical (in)maturity of children starting from the premise that we should not only observe the protection and interests of the child perpetrator, but also the protection and interests of the child victims and victims in general, who feel powerless in a system in which they cannot achieve material or moral satisfaction. Statistics show that the most common victims of juvenile crime are other children, and protection of the childperpetrator in such cases means neglection of the child-victim. The law cannot and should not be only "particularly human", neither for the sake of abstract "humanity" turn an eye to concrete crimes. The issue of lowering the age of criminal responsibility below 14 should be considered because this limit was set at another time and for minors who had a completely different lifestyle and who committed mostly property crimes. Having in mind all that, we advocate that MACR should be reduced to 12 years for all or alternatively only for violent crimes, and in terms of "criminally irresponsible" children, some form of parental criminal responsibility should be introduced. Because the child, by birth itself becomes a legal subject, and the consequences of his actions or the pain inflicted on the victim cannot be attributed to "force majeure", but exclusively to their guilt or the guilt of their parents.

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

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

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.