Minimum Age Of Criminal Responsibility Research Articles

Child Delinquency on the Internet

Recent reported cases and news on children and the Internet reflect the vulnerability of children when they are online, especially with in using the new medium of social networking websites such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. The criminal justice system faces the dilemma when children break the law, as children are considered as minors who are not legally responsible for their actions. In most cases, the society tend to focus on protecting children from neglect, abuse or harms but often overlooked of protecting children who are involved in harming or causing injury to other people or cause damage to property. It is equally important to address the growing concern on children’s exposure to usage of the Internet. Thus, the question such as, can the child’s wrongs on the Internet be considered as a delinquent act, namely possible wrongful acts conducted by children that would otherwise be an offence if committed by an adult, is explored. The legal status and minimum age of criminal responsibility in Malaysia are also examined. In addition, the Shariah views will be discussed briefly. Then, the paper explores the problems and challenges face by children in using social media websites. Finally, the paper suggests that the government and the community in particular parents and teachers have vital roles to play in ensuring that the policies and rules provide mechanism not only to protect children but also to empower them as a citizen of the country. This may be done by advocating legal awareness and educating the children to be more responsible in their acts online and uphold respect in law, ethics and morality.

Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Scotland: law reform at last?

Children in Scotland are held criminally responsible from the age of 8, something that has attracted wholly justified criticism within the country and from international organisations, including the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Despite the fact that this puts Scots law in the same camp as some of the world’s least progressive regimes, proposals to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility have, to date, been rejected. For the second time this century, a government-appointed advisory group recently recommended raising the age to 12. Setting the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Scotland in the context of historical, international and comparative developments and the burgeoning contemporary literature, this article argues that the climate for change has never been better. It predicts that, this time, the advisory group’s recommendation will result in legislative reform and highlights the challenges that will result.

Young Minds, Old Legal Problems

From 10 years of age, the criminal law requires a person demonstrate a reasonable degree of normative competence. But what if a young person aged between 10 and 14 years does not possess such mental capacities, cannot do anything about it and is not capable of holding responsibility? Should the criminal law make allowances for him in these circumstances? I will argue that it should, because neuroscientific studies reveal young adolescents to be incapable of exercising normative competence. For evidence suggests that they are only capable of performing basic mental functions, for instance, self-directed reasoning and appreciating short-term consequences of their actions. In agreement is Lord Dholakia, the principal drafter of the Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill (2017–2019) since the law’s idea of what a 10-year-old is mentally capable of is at odds with the degree of maturational development obtained. As a consequence, Lord Dholakia proposes that there be an increase in the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 years. Though the underlying premise to increase the threshold age is sound, numerous objections will be made, for it will be defended this proposition rests on insufficient neuroscientific evidence.

What Is a Juvenile? A Cross-National Comparison of Youth Justice Systems

In this article, the authors analyze cross-national variations in how the category of ‘juvenile’ is defined in criminal law and policy. The authors purposively selected the cases of Argentina, Belize, England/Wales, and Finland to maximize differences in the boundaries of the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility and the Age of Criminal Majority. Legal analysis identified two key factors: (a) the presence or absence of a distinct juvenile justice system, and (b) the stability (or fluctuation) of youth justice laws and age boundaries. These axes of difference and their various configurations across cases have broader implications for advancing children’s rights.

Garantía sustancial de edad mínima de responsabilidad penal juvenil

En Argentina, la aún vigente Ley N° 22.278 (1980), permite la disposición penal de los niños exentos de responsabilidad penal, propia de la doctrina del patronato, contraria al postulado del art. 40 inc. 3.a de la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niños (1989). Pero lo más preocupante es que en los debates legislativos de reforma penal juvenil, se advierte la ausencia de voluntad para establecer una normativa clara sobre qué tipo de intervención estatal corresponde a los niños no punibles, que en la práctica deriva en la justicia penal adolescente. Es por ello que el presente trabajo desarrolla la garantía sustancial de edad mínima de responsabilidad penal, como postulado de construcción del derecho penal juvenil, que limita la intervención del sistema represivo del estado, optando por la prevención del delito por medio de la protección integral de sus derechos.TEORÍA Y PRAXIS año 16, No.32, Enero-Mayo de 2018, pp.3-12

A Defense of Minority as a Ground for Procedural Objections in the Practice of Organs of International Criminal Justice

The article considers various aspects of reference to minority as grounds for procedural objections in the administration of the international judicial bodies of juvenile justice on charges of international crimes. It is noted that, despite the lack of a unified approach to the issue of the admissibility of the prosecution of juveniles for such crimes the international criminal tribunals (existing permanent and ad hoc) and hybrid judicial bodies, seems to be indisputable the validity of the qualification of minority of the accused as mitigating circumstances. Moreover, it is necessary to set the minimum age of criminal responsibility for international crimes through the adoption of a treaty.

Setting the minimum age of criminal responsibility for cybercrime

ABSTRACTThe criminalization of cybercrime is dependent on national sensitivities and implementation, even though cybercrime exhibits a transnational character. The Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime [2001. ETS No. 185, Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime. 23. XI.2001, ETS – No.185. Budapest] does not specify general provisions of substantive criminal law, such as provisions on the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR). Therefore, determining this necessary element of culpability – the MACR for cybercrime – has been left to the choice of the States parties to the Convention. At the moment, the MACRs set by the States parties differ widely. Consequently, discrepancies between national laws have the potential to hinder international cooperation against cybercrime and to create criminal safe havens for perpetrators who are below the MACRs. This paper seeks to analyse the problem for cybercrime enforcement caused by the MACR and to develop suitable criteria against which provisions on MACRs for cybercrime should be judged.

LEGAL CHALLENGES IN REGULATION OF MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Every minor can commit a criminal act, but in formal sense not every minor will be criminally responsible. Even if committing an act that in material sense have its consequences and all objective elements of a crime, possibility for imposing of criminal sanctions is still determined by minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR). When reaching into certain age minors are held to be criminally responsible and punishable. This article is focusing to the matter of establishment of minimum age of criminal responsibility, so comparative review of systems for its establishment and contemporary world tendencies will be discussed in it. In particular, this paper will be devoted to the establishment of MACR in Bosnia and Herzegovina from both historical and positive law insight. The age from which one will be held criminally responsible is an issue predisposed by several factors and choosing the optimum age will be discussed as the challenging question in this paper because it includes or excludes minors from the reach of criminal justice system that has unquestionable impact in their future life.

The Kasur Incident of Child Abuse: A Fact Funding Report; Analyzing State of Child Protection in Pakistan

An incident was surfaced in media nationally and internationally in 2015 where large number of children was sexually abused. Pakistan is a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and has also ratified Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. The reports finds that Pakistan lacks internationally accepted rights based child protection mechanism at national, provincial and local level. National and provincial laws and policies on child protection are inadequate. Child sexual abuse, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography are dealt indirectly in national and provincial laws. Denial and repression are also evident in the current state of legislation on child sexual abuse in Pakistan. The Prime Minister of Pakistan has taken serious notice of the report and directed federal and provincial governments to implement its recommendations which led to adoption of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2015 aimed at protecting children from mental and physical abuse. Amongst major amendments, the act raises the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 7 to 10 years and the upper age limit from 12 to 14 years. Moreover, it protects children from cruel treatment and criminalizes child pornography.

The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility in Victoria (Australia): Examining Stakeholders’ Views and the Need for Principled Reform

In Australia, children as young as 10 are charged, convicted and sentenced for breaches of the law. Drawing on interviews with youth justice professionals in Victoria, this study finds that inconsistencies in practice undermine the extent to which the common law presumption of doli incapax offers an effective legal safeguard for very young children in conflict with the law. This article advocates that the Australian minimum age of criminal responsibility be increased to 14, that the principle of doli incapax be applied consistently to all persons under the age of 18 and that justice responses be supplanted by therapeutic supports for children and families.

The common law influence over the age of criminal responsibility – Australia

This article explores how Australian jurisdictions came to have an approach to the age of criminal responsibility similar to that which existed in England and Wales until 1998. It discusses recent debates in Australia about reforming the minimum age of criminal responsibility and the presumption of doli incapax. This shows that while there has been criticism of the presumption of doli incapax within Australia no jurisdiction has taken the English step of abolishing it. It finds that a greater challenge to the presumption of doli incapax may, however, come from calls for an increase in the minimum age of criminal responsibility to the age of 12. While several common law countries have raised the minimum age level to 12 (as called for by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child), they have also abolished the presumption of doli incapax, thus reducing protection for 12- and 13-year-olds. This article argues that unless the minimum age of criminal responsibility is raised to 14 or 16, as preferred by the UN Committee, there are good reasons to retain the presumption of doli incapax.

The minimum age of criminal responsibility in continental Europe has a solid rational base

The focus this article takes is on the proposition that the age of criminal responsibility is a meaningful term. It will be stated that there is no proof that today’s young children have a greater understanding of the world than children had in the past. The article wants to make clear that the principle that children below a certain age are too young to be held responsible for breaking the law can be based on strong scientific evidence. It argues that it is unacceptable in the light of these empirical findings to decide not to have a national minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) and to leave the decision to prosecute a child under a certain age to the Lord Advocate. It is stated that there is sufficient scientific ground to conclude that arealistic MACR would be at age 14 or 15.

Reforming the age of criminal responsibility

This article discusses the age at which criminal responsibility should begin and whether there is still a need for the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax. It clarifies the various meanings given to the concept of the age of criminal responsibility and considers its importance. Some common law countries have moved away from the traditional position of a minimum age level of 7 years and a rebuttable presumption of doli incapax from 7 years until 14 years. In doing so, there has been a tendency to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 12 years and abolish the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax. After analysising these changes, the article argues that there is still a place for this presumption unless and until the minimum age of criminal responsibility is raised to the level preferred by the United Nations Committee on the Right of the Child.

Protections for children before the law: An empirical analysis of the age of criminal responsibility, the abolition of doli incapax and the merits of a developmental immaturity defence in England and Wales

The law’s response to child offenders has long animated debate and sparked doctrinal law reform in England and Wales. The provision of legal protections for children in trouble with the law has been central to such debates, and questions surrounding the age at which a child should be held criminally responsible remain a contested area of law both domestically and internationally. In 1998 England and Wales abolished the presumption of doli incapax and retained the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 10 years old; two years below the United Nations’ recommended standard. This article examines the legal protections provided for child offenders under English criminal law with a focus on the adequacy of the age of criminal responsibility, the now abolished presumption of doli incapax and the merits of a developmental immaturity defence. Drawing on data obtained from interviews conducted with members of the English criminal justice system, this article analyses the extent to which legal practitioners perceive that the existing provisions are adequate and concludes by reinvigorating debate surrounding the need for future review and reform.

An Analysis of the Exclusion of Child Soldiers Seeking Asylum under the 1951 Refugee Convention

Article 1F (a) of the Convention Relating to the Status of the Refugees has been applied by courts of law to exclude child soldiers seeking asylum from refugee status where it is established that there are serious reasons to consider that they committed the prohibited crimes. Its current application has fallen short of the best interests principle of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The author posits that the lack of a universally accepted minimum age of criminal responsibility has contributed to the problem. Furthermore, she contends that the legal threshold set out in Article 1F (a) has presented a challenge in applying the exclusion clause because of diverse interpretations.

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.

Child Soldiers, Executive Functions, and Culpability

Child soldiers, who often appear to be both victims and perpetrators, present a vexing moral and legal challenge: how can we protect the rights of children while seeking justice for the victims of war crimes? There has been little stomach, either in domestic or international courts, for prosecuting child soldiers—but neither has this challenge been systematically addressed in international law. Establishing a uniform minimum age of criminal responsibility would be a major step in the right direction; we argue that such a standard ought to be guided by the best evidence from neuropsychology about the development, during childhood and adolescence, of executive functions that give rise to morally and legally responsible agents. In light of that evidence, which suggests that the brain’s executive functions are still maturing into early adulthood, we recommend a graded structure of culpability for child soldiers.

A Brighter Tomorrow: Raise the Age of Criminal Responsibility

A report released by Amnesty International in May 2015 highlights the alarming overrepresentation of Indigenous young people in detention in Australia. It calls on the Australian Commonwealth Government to make a number of legislative changes to address this issue, which the report argues are necessary to ensure Australia's compliance with its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The foremost area in need of reform identified in the report is the low age of criminal responsibility in Australia. This note examines Amnesty International's arguments for an increase in the minimum age of criminal responsibility and agrees that the age should be raised to at least 12.

Measurements of developing teeth, and carpals and epiphyses of the ulna and radius for assessing new cut-offs at the age thresholds of 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 years

The minimum age of criminal responsibility is the youngest age at which children may be held liable for infringements of penal laws. New cut-offs at the age thresholds of 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 years were determined by applying three different methods: measurement of open apices in tooth roots (T); the ratio between the total area of carpal bones and epiphyses of the ulna and radius (HW); and the combined method (THW). The sample consisted of 291 Italian children (152 boys, 139 girls), aged between 5 and 15 years. The sensitivity and specificity were established. As regards THW, specificity reached the maximum of 95% in boys aged 10, and the minimum of 87% in boys aged 11. The best score of the Positive Predictive Value (PPV) was obtained in boys at 10 years with the THW method and the worst in girls of 12 with the HW method.

Deliberating the minimum age of criminal responsibility

The year 2015 marks 5 years since the implementation of the Child Justice Act No. 75 of 2008 in South Africa (Republic of South Africa, 2008). The Act was the country's first comprehensive legislation aimed at addressing children in conflict with the law. Among other provisions, this legislation raised the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 7 to 10 years, and included a rebuttable presumption of doli incapax (i.e., incapability of formulating criminal intent) for children between the ages of 10-14 years.