https://cdn.penalreform.

org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Childrens-rights-training-manual-
Final%C2%ADHR.pdf

United Arab Emirates: International Perspective On

Juvenile Justice
Last Updated: 29 March 2019
Article by STA Law Firm
STA Law Firm

Most Read Contributor in United Arab Emirates, August

2019

'No civilised society regards children as accountable for their actions to the same extent as
adults ... The wisdom of protecting young children against the full rigour of the law is beyond
argument. The difficulty lies in determining when and under what circumstances should it be
removed.' – Professor Colin Howard

The Law relating to juvenile protection is a highly controversial topic and should be treated with
utmost respect. Until recently, the law relating to the commission of crimes by the juveniles was
under a dilemma, and now with the evolvement of jurisprudence, the legal system is more
explicit concerning juvenile delinquency.

Juvenile justice is a sensitive area of law dealing with the rights and protection of children.
Therefore numerous amounts of legislation have been adopted at all levels, be it national or
international. Juvenile justice is a realm which deals with various issues including the liberty and
behavioral aspects of a juvenile.

In this article, we will analyze the concept of juvenile justice and the position of juveniles from an
international perspective.

Meaning

The term ‘Juvenile' refers to any person, who has not attained the age of majority. In other
words, a young person or a child who is not old enough to be regarded as an adult may be
termed as a juvenile. Therefore under the law, the criteria for determining a juvenile may vary
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, generally the age of 18 is considered as the age of
majority, however, in countries like Japan and Taiwan, it is 20 years.

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, also
known as the Beijing Rules, defines a juvenile as:

"A juvenile is a child or young person who, under the respective legal systems, may be dealt
with for an offence in a manner which is different from an adult."
As discussed earlier, Juvenile Justice is within the domain of criminal law which deals with the
offences committed by juveniles, and it also provides for their behavioral aspects, liberty,
rehabilitation, and penal implications.

Article 5 of the Beijing rules lay down the aims of juvenile justice as:

"The juvenile justice system shall emphasize the well-being of the juvenile and shall ensure that
any reaction to juvenile offenders shall always be in proportion to the circumstances of both the
offenders and the offence."

History

Prior to the evolution of the juvenile justice system, the criminal courts tried and punished
youths for the offences committed by them. Until the late 18 century, under the law, children
were considered and treated with the same as that of adults. However, with the evolution of
jurisprudence and the legal system, a thin line was drawn between the offences committed by
adults and juveniles. Subsequently, the first juvenile court was established in the United States
of America (Illinois) in 1899. The early juvenile institutions operated and were adopted under the
doctrine of ‘Parens patriae’, which meant that a state could act as a parent of the nation.

Juvenile Delinquency

Juvenile Delinquency is the commission of an offence by a Juvenile. With the development of

law concerning Juveniles, the method in which a juvenile is treated is different from that of an
adult.

James Burfeind and Dawn Bartusch in their Juvenile Justice: An Integrated approach defines
juvenile delinquency as:

"Actions that violate the law, committed by a person under the legal age of majority."

The reason for the differential treatment that exists between juveniles and adults is because of
the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR) and the doctrine of Doli Incapax.

The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR) is the minimum age of a child that is
deemed not to have committed a crime. Article 4 of the Beijing rules deals with the minimum
age of criminal responsibility, and it reads as:

“In those legal systems recognizing the concept of the age of criminal responsibility for
juveniles, the beginning of that age shall not be fixed at too low an age level, bearing in mind the
facts of emotional, mental and intellectual maturity.”

The age of criminal responsibility differs from country to country, and the Beijing rules provide
for taking adequate measures to make it reasonable.

The most critical element for constituting a crime is ‘mens rea’ or the criminal intention to
commit an offence. A juvenile and an adult are subjected to different judicial procedures
primarily due to this notion. The notion that a child is incapable of having the intention to commit
a crime is called as ‘doli incapax.' Under the English law, the doctrine of ‘doli incapax’ was the
defense of infancy unless such a presumption was rebutted. Some of the states follow this
doctrine, and therefore juveniles below a particular age are excluded from the liability for the
commission of an offence. However, the age may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For
example, the age of criminal responsibility is twelve in Canada and the Netherlands, whereas it
is 7 in the UAE and India. This does not call for a necessity to maintain a specific age for
criminal prosecution, and therefore in some countries, it is up to the prosecution to prove the
existence of criminal intent.

In T v. DPP [1997] Criminal LR 127, T an eleven-year-old child stole sandwiches from a shop.
At the instance of getting caught, T tossed the sandwiches down and fled the scene. When
interviewed, the child admitted the act of stealing because of having no money. In this case, the
court opined that the combination of admission and running away from the scene was sufficient
for rebuttal.

International Position

Though the concept of juvenile justice was not given much importance until the late 19 century,
now it has become an area of law which contains the most number of legislation and
International treaties. The international juvenile justice system focuses on the offences
committed by the juveniles and has provided for the measures to protect the interests of the
juveniles from the abuse of law. With the increase in concerns relating to child protection and
their rights, many countries have adopted measures within their legal framework to safeguard
the interest of the juveniles.

In Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. 551, Christopher Simmons, age 17, arranged to burglarize a
lady's home and murder her. He, along with two of his friends, planned for the crime. However,
before the evening of the murder, one of his companions quit the arrangement. Simmons and
his friend broke into the victim's home, bound her hands and tossed her over the bridge. In this
case, the jury found him guilty and recommended for the death penalty.

However, in 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it unconstitutional for a person
under the age of 18 years to be subject to capital punishment sentence, and thus overruled the
1989 Stanford v. Kentucky decision, which permitted capital punishment for offenders who were
above the age of 16 years.

The following are some of the International covenants dealing with the
International juvenile system:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 states -“5. Sentence of death
shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall
not be carried out on pregnant women.”

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice,
1985 also known as the Beijing rules, was adopted on 29 November 1985 for protecting the well
being of children.

The United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty,
1990 also known as the Havana rules, lays down the standard for the management of the
juvenile justice system.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1989 provides for the
protection of children by ensuring the rights available to them.

The United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, 1990 also
known as the Riyadh guidelines, provides for the prevention of juvenile delinquency.

The United Nations Guidelines for Action on Children in the Criminal Justice System,
1997 also known as the Vienna guidelines, were adopted for the protection of children and it
was addressed not only to the states, but also NGO's and media.

The International Juvenile Justice Observatory was formed in Brussels in 2002, to encourage
global juvenile justice and to tackle the issues relating to juvenile delinquency and justice
issues.

Therefore the above mentioned International instruments have taken adequate measures for
the protection, and well-being of juveniles, and make it an obligation on the states to enact
legislation conforming to such recommendations and policies.

The position of Juvenile Justice in the UAE

The UAE has taken adequate measures for the protection of Juveniles, and further has enacted
and implemented provisions associated with juvenile delinquency. The United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted and ratified by the UAE on 3 January 1987,
and it was one of the first countries to do so within the Middle East.

Article (1) of the UAE Federal Law Number 9 of 1976 concerning juvenile delinquents and
runaways defines a juvenile as:

“Juvenile is a person who is not older than eighteen years of age at the time of committing the
act subject for questioning or being in a state of homeless.”

Article (7) states:

“If a juvenile who completed seven years but is below sixteen years of age committed a crime
punishable by the penal code or any other law the judge shall give its ruling as it may find fit.”

The Article (10) of Federal Law Number 9 of 1976 provides for the replacement of capital
punishment or life imprisonment in the case of a juvenile to detention punishment for up to 10
years. It provides for reducing the term so that it does not exceed one half of the maximum limit
originally determined. Further, Article (10) also provides the juvenile delinquent with social care
and educational facilities.

According to the Article (12), where a juvenile has committed more than one offence, he shall
be punishable for both the crimes as one, provided that he receives punishment for the worst
crime.

Article (23) provides for placing juveniles in suitable institutions or correction and educational
homes for rehabilitation.
Therefore, the Federal Law Number 9 of 1976 provides for the law relating to juvenile
delinquency and protection of juvenile offenders.

The UAE Federal Law Number 43 of 1992 deals with the organization of punitive institutions
and it contains provisions relating to juvenile rehabilitation. Chapter 7 of the Federal Law
Number 43 of 1992 provides for rehabilitating the Juveniles.

Article (49) reads as:

“A committee for rehabilitating the juveniles shall be formed upon a resolution from the minister
of interior, in agreement with the minister of justice and Labour and social affairs, headed by
one of the presidents of the federal public prosecution, including the following in its membership:

1. The establishment officer.

2. One of the specialists in psychology.
3. A representative of the ministry of education.
4. A representative of the social affairs.

The committee shall be entitled to ask the aid of whom it deemed necessary from the
concerned.”

The Article (51) of the Federal Law Number 43 of 1992 contains provisions for allowing the
juvenile to leave the establishment to visit relatives in the official feasts, during exceptional
conditions or in any other occasion. It also provides for exceptional vocation, provided that such
a resolution is from the minister of interior based on the committee’s recommendation.

Therefore, from above it is obvious that the concerned laws offer considerable protection to the
juveniles within the region and adequate steps have been taken by the government for
protection of juvenile justice.

Conclusion

The fine line between the commission of offences between an adult and a juvenile is now well
accepted and recognized. Almost all the countries have provided for separate laws relating to
the acts committed by juveniles, and it is necessary for the better administration of the State.
Therefore, juvenile justice covers all the spheres of a juvenile’s life and is not restricted to a
particular set of regulations.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist
advice should be sought about your specific circumstances

http://www.mondaq.com/x/793010/Crime/International+Perspective+On+Juvenile+Justice

Children are not criminals

By
Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan

January 28, 2019

444

THE Revised Penal Code of the Philippines and Presidential Decree 603 (The Child and
Youth Welfare Code of 1994) both exempt nine-year-old children from criminal liability.
Under Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006), which envisions a
holistic and restorative justice approach, the minimum age of criminal responsibility
(MACR) is 15 years of age. This means that those aged 15 and below who commit crime
are exempt from criminal liability but are instead subjected to intervention programs. The
exemption also applies to those older than 15 but under 18, unless they “acted with
discernment.”

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child recommends an “absolute
minimum” age of 12 for criminal responsibility. And yet several countries are below the
recommended MACR. Senate Bill 1603 of Sen. Francklin M. Drilon cites that Scotland
can hand out criminal convictions to eight-year-olds. In the rest of the United Kingdom,
ten-year-olds can be tried for a crime. This British colonial legacy is also apparent in the
relatively low MACRs seen in South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Similarly,
Nigeria, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are among the 21 countries that set a MACR of
seven years old, the lowest national age globally (Explanatory Note, SB 1603).

Likewise, SB 2026 of Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III cites a study conducted by the Child
Rights International Network where the threshold age for criminal responsibility is lower
than the Philippines. The average MACR in the African region is 11, as well as in the
Asian region; while for the American and European regions, it is 13. Furthermore, the
minimum age of criminal liability is set at the federal and state level in the United Sates.
At the state level, 33 states set no minimum age of criminal penalties at any age. Of the
States that do set a MACR, North Carolina has the lowest at seven years, while
Wisconsin has the highest at 10 years old (Explanatory Note, SB 2026).

Similarly, in the House of Representatives, Rep. Victor A. Yap in House Bill 505 states
that in England and Wales, people of offending age are classed as those aged 10 years or
older. In the US, the youngest age for juvenile delinquency is six years old in the State of
North Carolina, seven years old in Maryland, Massachusetts and New York and State of
Arizona at eight years old (Explanatory Note, HB 505).

It is apparent from the foregoing that there appears to be no global consensus as to the
minimum age which a person may be charged with and convicted of criminal offense. In
the Philippines, the proposal to amend our existing laws to lower the MACR has drawn a
divide between child advocates who underscore rehabilitation and reintegration for child
offenders versus reformers of the youth justice system who want to lower criminal
liability to ensure that the Filipino youth would accept responsibility for their actions,
consistent with President Duterte’s goal to curb criminality in this country.

HB 2009 of Rep. Romeo A. Acop cites a report from the Council for the Welfare of
Children, which shows that more than 52,000 children from 1995 to 2000 were reported
to be in conflict with the law. Separate data from the Department of Welfare and Social
Development (DSWD) disclose that from 2001 to 2010, there were close to 64,000
children in conflict with the law served by the government, an indication that the
problem has persisted through the years despite the passage in 2006 of Republic
Act 9344 or the Juvenile Welfare and Justice Act (Explanatory Note, HB 2009).
Both the Senate and the House are expected to tackle the lowering of criminal liability.
House Speaker Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo wants to lower the age to nine. The Senate
wants to lower it to 12. For the heinous crimes of (1) parricide, (2) murder (3) infanticide
(4) kidnapping and serious illegal detention where the victims are killed or raped (5)
robbery with homicide or rape or serious physical injuries (6) destructive arson (7) rapes
(8) carnapping where the driver or occupant is killed or raped (9) offenses under RA
9165 “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002” punishable by 12 years
imprisonment, the child above nine years of age up to 15 is NOT exempt from criminal
liability.

I personally disagree with both the House and Senate moves. Children who are in
conflict with the law are not criminals. Our lawmakers and our government should
instead focus on the root cause of why youth offenders are on the rise. They should
focus instead on addressing poverty and other issues that force children to be in conflict
with the law. I agree with Unicef Philippines’s position that these bills lowering the age of
criminal responsibility are “an act of violence against children.” At least 55 percent of
Filipinos in a March 2017 survey believe that the MACR should be kept at 15 years old
(Rappler.com)

I read a post that has become viral. The following was copied from Patty Sison-Arroyo, a
known advocate and currently a member of the Council for the Welfare of Children, an
attached agency of DSWD:

“Here are the little known consequences of lowering to 9:

“1. Your child’s misbehavior will become a misdemeanor, hurt someone during rough
play = physical injuries take someone else’s things without permission = theft say
something bad about another kid = slander break another kid’s gadget = malicious
mischief hurt someone by accident = reckless imprudence And the list goes on.

“2. Your child may be arrested on the spot even without a warrant of arrest if your child
has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a ‘crime.’

“3. Your child may be detained in a detention cell, possibly with adult detention
prisoners, if there is no child-caring institution in your locality.
“4. If there is ‘probable cause’ (i.e., it looks like your kid committed the crime), a criminal
case will be filed against your child, and your child will have to go to court for trial or
‘diversion’ (an alternative way of finding guilt), which may take years to resolve.

“5. If you’re lucky, the case may end up with a child-friendly court— i.e., there’s a stuffed
toy in the waiting room, some crayons and coloring books, the judge will not put on the
black robe, and your kid can testify in front of a video camera from the judge’s chambers
right beside the court room.

“6. If your child is convicted, he or she will not be imprisoned but will remain in the
custody of a child-caring institution until the court is satisfied that your child has
reformed.

“7. After having gone through all of the above, a process which has the potential to
destroy the soul and spirit of a full-grown adult, your child will be released back to you.

“Do we really want to subject our children to this?” (posted in Viber).

We hear horror stories about congressmen, senators and public officials stealing billions
of our people’s money. They are the true criminals, since public funds which should be
devoted to social services, poverty alleviation, education, food, clothing and shelter are
siphoned into their private pockets. Why not focus on sending them all to the gallows?

They have stolen our monies, now they want to call our little children criminals. They are
stealing our children’s innocence.

To me, that is the heinous crime. Shame on all of you!

FacebookFacebook MessengerTwitterPinterestTumblrGmailWhatsAppKindle ItViberYahoo

MailEvernoteInstapaper
https://businessmirror.com.ph/2019/01/28/children-are-not-criminals/

https://www.ohchr.org/documents/professionalinterest/crc.pdf

https://ijrcenter.org/thematic-research-guides/childrens-rights/
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/child-rights/international-law.php