JUVENILE JUSTICE: Age limit, age determination, and public misconceptions

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: 

  • indigenous and non-indigenous children
  • white and Afro-descendent children
  • middle class and lower class or peasant children
  • whether the family environment is a violent or non-violent one
  • whether the gender of the child offender means they are exposed to different experiences. 

The influence of misconceptions

Mr Fernando Sabogal Baez also criticised the common myths that criminalise children. These include:  

  • that children have too many rights;
  • that adults are too lenient on badly-behaved children;
  • that crimes are committed by ever-younger people.  

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".  

Issues: 
Minority or indigenous children
Gender and girls

Please note that these reports are hosted by CRIN as a resource for Child Rights campaigners, researchers and other interested parties. Unless otherwise stated, they are not the work of CRIN and their inclusion in our database does not necessarily signify endorsement or agreement with their content by CRIN.