Minimum Age Of Criminal Responsibility Research Articles

Childhood and modernity: a social constructionist reflection onto the dilemma of ‘child execution’ within the Islamic context

The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) further strengthened the rhetoric behind the child protectionist agenda which was initiated and implemented by modern welfare state policies in the West during the early decades of the 20th century. Accordingly, the majority of the member states responded positively to the UNCRC by increasing the minimum age of criminal responsibility, as well as making further and ongoing improvements within the juvenile criminal justice system. Reflecting on the dilemma of ‘child execution’, with a particular focus on Iran, this paper looks at the implications of Shariah law in defining the minimum age of criminal responsibility within the Islamic context and argues that, although childhood in Islamic countries has – to a large extent – undergone the same structural changes which led to the emergence of the contemporary protectionist agenda on childhood globally, legal perceptions concerning ‘child execution’ within the Islamic context continue to act upon a pre-modern trajectory of childhood and children's agency in the modern era.

A CRITICAL LEGAL ANALYSIS ON THE MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE NEW ISLAMIC PUNISHMENT ACT OF IRAN

The provision for a minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) is stated in a number of international children’s rights instruments. The preamble of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) states that a child, by reason of his physical, mental and emotional immaturity is in need of special safeguards, care and assistance. Despite remarkable improvements in a number of provisions, an examination of the Iran’s laws and regulations reveal that the provision of MACR is currently in conflict with the international instruments particularly the UNCRC. This is despite the fact that Iran is a State Party of the UNCRC since. Furthermore, the Iranian Civil Code expressly provide that the government is to implement the UNCRC provisions as an international treaty. This article critically examines the position of the MACR and punishments of children in the new Islamic Punishment Act of Iran (2013) based on the four Islamic categories of punishments namely Hadd, Qisas, Diya and Ta’zir as enshrined in the new Act. The current article places emphasis on the examination of the issue of MACR in Iran and how effectively it is addressed by the new Act. The nature of this research is doctrinal by examining the new Act of Iran 2013 with a critical legal overview on the Articles relating to children and their impact on the rights of children. Furthermore, it compares the relevant Articles on MACR and punishments of the new Act with the previous abolished Act and the international standards. The purpose is to highlight both the limitations and advancements of the new Act. In the final analysis, this article concludes that despite the improvements in the field of children’s rights in the new Act, it still poses potential risks for the rights of the children in Iran.

Категория возрастной незрелости в юридическом контексте

We presented psychological and legal approaches to the concept of immaturity, and the definition of the perpetrator. We analyzed the differences of age aspects of the subject of crime in different countries, the criteria for establishing a minimum age of criminal responsibility. We discuss the problem of the possibility of lowering the age of criminal responsibility in the Russian Federation from the point of view of psychological science. We considered the legal category of "mental retardation not associated with mental illness" and its psychological equivalent - "personal immaturity". We describe the main problems arising in the course of the complex judicial, psychological and psychiatric examination for the presence of a mental retardation not associated with mental illness in minor. We presented psychological approaches to the concept of "personal immaturity", described the concept of "mature personality".

Theorising Children's Rights in Youth Justice: The Significance of Autonomy and Foundational Rights

This paper develops a theoretical approach to children's rights in youth justice, located within a wider rights‐based theory of criminal justice which emphasises the centrality of citizens' autonomy. Understanding what is special about children's rights in the youth justice system requires an understanding of how children's autonomy differs from that of adults. One difference is that within the legal system children are not considered to be fully autonomous rights‐holders, because childhood is a time for gathering and developing the assets necessary for full autonomy. These assets should be protected by a category of ‘foundational’ rights. It is argued that an essential component of a rights‐based penal system for children is that it should not irreparably or permanently harm the child's foundational rights. The concept of foundational rights can then underpin and strengthen international children's rights standards, including those relating to the minimum age of criminal responsibility, differential sentencing for children and adults and a rights‐based system of resettlement provision.

The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: Clinical, Criminological/Sociological, Developmental and Legal Perspectives

One of the most complex, contested and controversial questions confronting modern juvenile/youth justice systems concerns the minimum age of criminal responsibility: the age at which a child is deemed to be sufficiently ‘mature’ to be held responsible before the substantive criminal law. In the three UK jurisdictions − England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland − the minimum age of criminal responsibility falls significantly below the European average. In England and Wales, for example, the largest UK jurisdiction by some distance, children are held to be fully responsible in criminal proceedings once they reach the age of 10 years. The legitimacy, or otherwise, of exposing such young children to the full weight of criminal law is increasingly a source of lively debate, attracting interest from a broad range of stakeholders. It is timely, therefore, to subject the minimum age of criminal responsibility to analytical scrutiny. It is within this context that the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Adolescent Forensic Psychiatry Special Interest Group took the initiative, in October 2012, to convene a conference in order to explore the question of criminal responsibility from different disciplinary perspectives: clinical, criminological/sociological, developmental and legal. The substantive articles that form the basis of this ‘special issue’ began life at that conference. They have since been developed and subjected to peer review and what follows is an attempt to open up an informed inter-disciplinary discussion. It is no coincidence, given the low minimum ages of criminal responsibility that prevail, that each article centres its analytical focus on youth justice jurisdictions within the UK. That being said, each article also draws upon a wide-ranging international literature in addressing questions that extend far beyond any single, and nationally bounded, juris492050 YJJ13210.1177/1473225413492050Youth JusticeChurch et al. 2013

The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: A Medico-Legal Perspective

The minimum age of criminal responsibility is set in England and Wales at 10 years of age (Children and Young Persons Act 1963), whilst the effective age of most civil responsibilities is 16. Research allows us to consider the speed of development of key brain structures in terms of decision-making and this in turn aids in discussion of where the minimum age should be set. This article reviews the evolution of the minimum age of criminal responsibility and examines the setting of this age in light of both civil attainment ages and the current scientific understanding of brain development.

‘Unsafe, Unjust and Harmful to Wider Society’: Grounds for Raising the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility in England and Wales

This article assesses critically the means by which social (symbolic) and statutory (institutionalized) constructions of child ‘offenders’ in England and Wales intersect and underpin processes of responsibilization and adultification. It is argued that securing immunity from prosecution should be the principal driver for raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. In this sense the analysis is less concerned with questions of capacity and mens rea and more interested in: compliance with international human rights standards; modelling a system of justice that is broadly compatible with law, policy and practice in Europe (and elsewhere); ensuring that criminal law coheres with civil law; minimizing social harm and obtaining the best outcomes for children in conflict with the law, the wider community and the general public in respect of crime prevention and community safety. Finally, the prospects for such progressive reform within a context of heightened politicization are considered.

The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility of Children in International and Iranian Law: A Comparative Study

The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility of Children in International and Iranian Law: A Comparative Study

Book review: Children’s Rights and the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility

Book review: Children’s Rights and the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility

The criminal responsibility of children and young people: an analysis of compliance with international human rights obligations in England and Wales

The question of the minimum age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is one which regularly arises. The recent confirmation of the abolition of the presumption of doli incapax raised some concerns about the resultant treatment of young people in the criminal justice system. This paper approaches this issue from the perspective of England and Wales’ compliance with human rights obligations. The application of the substantive criminal law is analysed with respect to its compliance with relevant international human rights standards. Research relating to the engagement of the criminal justice process with young people is examined, leading to a conclusion that the position in practice bears more consideration to the status of young people than the substantive law might initially suggest. However, concerns relating to arbitrariness in this practice lead to a conclusion that raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility is desirable.

The age of criminal responsibility: developmental science and human rights perspectives

PurposeThe minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) was set at ten years old in 1963. Since then a deeper appreciation of children's rights and understanding of their unique capabilities and experiences has been gained. This paper seeks to examine the implications of these developments for our understanding of this MACR.Design/methodology/approachResearch is reviewed that illuminates questions about children's culpability, their competence to participate in the criminal justice system (CJS) and the consequences of criminalising them at a young age. Recent understandings of how children's rights apply to the MACR are also summarised.FindingsDevelopmental science and human rights perspectives are inconsistent with a MACR no younger than 12 years.Originality/valueThe paper is one of the first to extensively apply developmental science research to the MACR. The author finds that although a just and rehabilitative CJS may be achievable in the case of most adolescent defendants, this is an unrealistic goal for younger children who instead require a welfare‐based system that addresses underlying causes of antisocial behaviour, facilitates accountability and ensures child protection.

Consequences of Raising Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility on Thai Young Offenders

Consequences of Raising Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility on Thai Young Offenders

Do we need universal minimum age of criminal responsibility?

Although considerable efforts have been made in international law in order to set the general minimum age of criminal responsibility, no consensus has been reached on this issue. Having in mind the nature of international law it seems that such efforts are futile. Regardless of the (in)ability of international law to provide an answer to the question regarding minimum age of criminal responsibility, and the need to set general minimum age at the international level applicable in different societies, international normative acts bind national jurisdictions on regional and even universal level. With the aim of examining international standards dealing with the minimum age in national criminal legislation, and having in mind the obligation of states to harmonize their laws with international legal instruments, the author made an overview of the most relevant among these international standards in order of their creation. The tendency of harmonizing the minimum age of criminal responsibility, while formally hidden behind the rule of law argument in the states that belong to different cultures, ridicules specific character of particular culture on which every moral and legal order rests. As an illustration of this position, the author researched a number of (very different) comparative-law approaches. The comparative-law analysis clearly reveals colonial and non-colonial approach to this issue. Also, comparison of national legislation indicates wider dependents of child's understanding of criminal law on particular culture. The analysis of international regulatory standards and comparative-law approaches in a number of countries raises the issue of justification of harmonization with predominant standards of the international community in situations when national-law regulation does not correspond to the needs of a particular society.

Children's Rights and the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: A Global Perspective. By Don Cipriani (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009, 232pp. 55.00 hb)

Children's Rights and the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility: A Global Perspective. By Don Cipriani (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009, 232pp. 55.00 hb)

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Punishment of Children Under English Law – Public and Private Vices?

The punishment of children in the domestic sphere and in the public domain is an issue of concern for those with care of children or whose interests lie in the protection of children’s human rights. How children are treated when they are judged to have broken rules reveals fundamental approaches to the welfare of those who have yet to reach adulthood. The effect of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in respect of how children are punished, whether in the home or as transgressors of criminal law, may be examined through two distinct but linked spheres: the private and home life context of domestic or personal punishment, and the public domain of state punishment of children in terms of criminal responsibility under English Law. Both spheres reveal attitudes towards the rights of children which suggest how human rights are accorded to particular groups in applying international obligations to a state’s domestic provision. This article seeks to explore some issues of compliance with Article 19 (the physical chastisement of children), Article 37 (the imprisonment of children being a ‚last resort’) and Article 40 (the minimum age of criminal responsibility) of the United Nations Convention on the␣Rights of the Child. The application of the rights of children and the operation of the ‚best interests’ of the child in applying Articles 19, 37 and 40 suggests that there are issues in relation to non-compliance which indicate a diminution of the separate rights of children under English Law in particular and in the operation of the best interests of the child.

Entwicklungsaspekte in der Strafrechtsbegutachtung

The history of German legislation resulting in the developmental orientation of juvenile court law (JCL) led to setting the minimum age of criminal responsibility at the age of 14, which places Germany within the average range compared to other EU countries, even though most skills regarding the discernment of right- or wrong-doing are developed in earlier stages of life. The requirement put by section sign 3 JCL that legal discernment be emotionally grounded and the necessity to explore context factors (family or group, specific situation) make psychiatric evaluation of adolescents in court a delicate task. It is indispensable that new findings in neurobiology be considered upon making an assessment of the individual neuro-developmental status. In contrast, an assessment according to section sign 105 JCL considers the overall development irrespective of the crime(s). Developmental issues regarding legal prognosis are discussed for some types of offences (homicide, sexual offences, arson).

Abstract

Providing appropriate legal mechanisms, that evaluate the progression of development from the age of childhood innocence to maturity and full responsibility, considered one of the difficult areas of criminal justice policy. The minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) in children varies among countries and differs widely owing to history and culture. Due to rising and brutality of criminal offenses, particularly by juveniles, few countries have lowered the minimum age of criminal responsibility, and many have considered/considering to do the same. India is one such country in which is under the proposal of lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 16 years. As there is lack of useful age assessment methods, that can indicate whether if the individual in question is younger (<16 years) or older than MACR (≥16 years), the present study was undertaken to derive a specific cut-off value of the third molar maturity index (I3M) for this purpose. The sample consisted of 1078 orthopantomograms (OPTs) from Andhra Pradesh, India, aged between 11 and 20 years (45.4% males and 54.6% females). The reproducibility of I3M was calculated by intra-class correlation coefficients, which showed an intra-rater and inter-rater agreement of 0.912 and 0.891, respectively. The sample was divided into training dataset (819 OPTs), to test I3M and gender as independent variables and MACR as a dependent variable by logistic regression analysis, and test dataset (259 OPTs). A receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis was performed to evaluate the specific cut-off value of I3M for predicting MACR status. A logistic regression analysis showed that gender was not statistically significant for predicting MACR status while ROC analysis indicated a cut-off value of I3M = 0.293 as best for predicting MACR status. The performance of derived cut-off value was tested in a test data set. The sensitivity of the test was 90.6% and 90%, while specificity was 86% and 87.1% in males and females, respectively. The proportion of correctly classified individuals was 88.0% and 88.7% in males and females, respectively. The estimated Bayes post-test probability in males was 87.2% and while in females it was 88.3%. The results highlight the contribution of the derived cut-off value of I3M for discriminating individuals around MACR and should be evaluated in other populations.

Juvenile delinquency: Historical, cultural, and legal perspectives : by Arnold Binder, Gilbert Geis, and Dickson Bruce MacMillan Publishing Company (866 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022), 1988, 566 pp., hardcover—$29.95.

Providing appropriate legal mechanisms, that evaluate the progression of development from the age of childhood innocence to maturity and full responsibility, considered one of the difficult areas of criminal justice policy. The minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) in children varies among countries and differs widely owing to history and culture. Due to rising and brutality of criminal offenses, particularly by juveniles, few countries have lowered the minimum age of criminal responsibility, and many have considered/considering to do the same. India is one such country in which is under the proposal of lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 16 years. As there is lack of useful age assessment methods, that can indicate whether if the individual in question is younger (<16 years) or older than MACR (≥16 years), the present study was undertaken to derive a specific cut-off value of the third molar maturity index (I3M) for this purpose. The sample consisted of 1078 orthopantomograms (OPTs) from Andhra Pradesh, India, aged between 11 and 20 years (45.4% males and 54.6% females). The reproducibility of I3M was calculated by intra-class correlation coefficients, which showed an intra-rater and inter-rater agreement of 0.912 and 0.891, respectively. The sample was divided into training dataset (819 OPTs), to test I3M and gender as independent variables and MACR as a dependent variable by logistic regression analysis, and test dataset (259 OPTs). A receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis was performed to evaluate the specific cut-off value of I3M for predicting MACR status. A logistic regression analysis showed that gender was not statistically significant for predicting MACR status while ROC analysis indicated a cut-off value of I3M = 0.293 as best for predicting MACR status. The performance of derived cut-off value was tested in a test data set. The sensitivity of the test was 90.6% and 90%, while specificity was 86% and 87.1% in males and females, respectively. The proportion of correctly classified individuals was 88.0% and 88.7% in males and females, respectively. The estimated Bayes post-test probability in males was 87.2% and while in females it was 88.3%. The results highlight the contribution of the derived cut-off value of I3M for discriminating individuals around MACR and should be evaluated in other populations.