Submitted by crinadmin on
[7 March 2012] - Some countries' move to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) is “a step back” for children's rights, said the Chair of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Mr Jean Zermatten, at a debate on age limits in juvenile justice systems organised by Defence for Children International. Security issues Mr Zermatten situated the trend to lower the MACR within the context of States’ concern for increased public security. But warned that this concern does not allow for the recognition of the three stages of criminal responsibility defined as 1) total irresponsibility, 2) partial responsibility and 3) full responsibility – all of which determine “specific responses for offenders within certain age brackets”. Upon raising the question of why we need specialised laws specific to child offenders, Mr Zermatten said "because we are dealing with people who are vulnerable on account of their age and level of maturity”. Birth registration Mr Zermatten also noted the significance of birth registration within the issue of MACR. He highlighted situations where the lack of a birth certificate or a similar identification document leaves an offending child unable to prove his or her age. This, Zermatten added, leaves the child open to the arbitrary determination of his or her age, and can result in their detention or imprisonment among adults and convicted criminals. Illustrating this point with a country example, a speaker from the organisation Solidarity for Children in Africa and the World (ESAM) said that the MACR in Benin is 13, but children younger than 13 can be found in prison because many of them have no birth certificate and they so do not know when they were born. Mr Zermatten also raised the concern about how some States wait for offending children to reach the age of majority so as to be able to try them as adults. Acknowledging differences between children Public opinion in Latin America mistakenly holds that indigenous, black and migrant children are more likely to commit an offence, said Mr Fernando Sabogal Baez from Defence for Children International Colombia. This observation prompted the question of why this common belief exists? Where is the research that corroborates this allegation? And when sentencing these children, are their cases examined on an individual basis, so as to determine the socio-economic circumstances of each offending child? Looking at differences in circumstances could shed light on whether the following factors are of significance: The influence of misconceptions Mr Fernando Sabogal Baez also criticised the common myths that criminalise children. These include: He also drew on the influence of the media in perpetuating social alarm "by only reporting on children and adolescents when one has committed an offence, and never when one wins a prize for exceptional school attainment".