House panel OK’s bill

lowering age of criminal

liability to 9
THE HOUSE committee on justice on Monday approved what its chairman called a “pro-
children” measure lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 9 years old from the current
15 years old.

“This is not anti-poor and anti-children, it is in fact pro-children. Wala namang ibang gusto
dito ‘yung batas kundi pangalagaan sila na ginagamit ng mga sindikato,” committee chair
Salvador C. Leachon of the 1  district of Oriental Mindoro told reporters after the meeting.
st

(The law intends only to ensure that children are not exploited by [criminal] syndicates).

Rep. Lawrence H. Fortun of the 1  district of Agusan del Norte was the sole panel member
st

who objected to the approval. Gabriela Rep. Arlene D. Brosas also objected but her vote
wasn’t counted, as she’s not a member of the committee.

The bill will amend Republic Act No. 9344, or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, lowering
the age of criminal liability to 9 years old from 15 years old.

Mr. Leachon, in his opening statement, cited a “surge in the number of child criminals.”

The 17  Congress has a little less than two months in its calendar to work on legislative
th

measures, but Mr. Leachon said he is confident the proposed bill will be enacted.
“I’m pretty confident because we’re now preparing the committee report. It will be forwarded
to the committee on rules. It will be dependent on the committee on rules,” Mr. Leachon
said.

“I am ready anyway to defend it in the plenary either tomorrow or on Wednesday. We’re

open, of course, to the concerns and issues to be raised by the members.”

“This is actually a priority. This was not tackled by the previous leadership precisely,
number 1, the Committee was busy with the impeachment case (then) against (Ma. Lourdes
P. A.) Sereno, and then when I assumed (the chairmanship) I was burdened with the
impeachment (complaint against) the seven justices.”

If enacted, the bill will provide an intervention program for children in conflict with the law,
who will then be committed to a child-caring institution.

Further, the bill will penalize the exploitation of children for the commission of crimes with
reclusion temporal, if the crime is punishable by imprisonment of 6 years or less, or
reclusion perpetua, if punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 years.

For his part, Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief Director-General Oscar D. Albayalde
said in a press briefing on Monday, “We will have to consult ‘yung ating legal d’yan, pero the
way we see it, kasi especially right after ‘yung raid ng PDEA doon sa Navotas, nakita
natin as young as 10 years old. You could just imagine these are being used already as
drug runners. Ito ‘yung pinaka runners kasi natututo din ‘yung matatanda na ginagamit
‘yung mga bata dahil alam nila ‘yung mga bata hindi makukulong.” (We will have to consult
our legal office, but the way we see it, especially right after the PDEA raid in Navotas, we’ve
seen that even children as young as 10 years old are involved. You could just imagine they
are being used already as drug runners. They serve as the runners because the older ones
know children will not be imprisoned).

The PNP chief added, “Even in US, there are some states na ang kanilang age of criminal
liability ay 7 years old. In some other countries, mababa ang age of criminal liability. As far
as we are concerned, based on the realities of crimes in the country. I think it’s a wise move
to consider, but I’m sure maraming safeguards ‘yan to make sure itong mga kabataan
ay truly reformed, not (to) destroy their lives.” (I think it’s a wise move to consider but I’m
sure there are many safeguards to make sure that these children are truly reformed…).

‘HYSTERIA’
For its part, the Senate committee on justice and human rights will open its inquiry today
into the bills seeking to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility from the present 15
years old.

“Really there’s an awful lot of hysteria that can be generated from of it. It’s serious, we
respect it. Kids should not be put to prison but on the other hand, kids must remain
conscious of the fact that everybody has got to have a certain amount of responsibility and
we should not allow people to take advantage of them,” committee chair Senator Richard J.
Gordon told reporters on Monday.

The House committee on justice on Monday approved the bill lowering the age of criminal
responsibility to nine years. The proposed measure sets the minimum age lower than the
Senate bill introduced by Senate President Vicente C. Sotto III, which sets it at 12 years old.

However, several senators opposed the proposal of the House panel. Even Mr. Sotto said
the prescribed age was too much and conceded to lower the criminal responsibility until 11
years old.

“It’s just a matter of debate on what will be the pros and cons. But the important thing is that
we all agree that it should be lowered and they have to be held accountable, that is the
most important thing,” Mr. Sotto told reporters.

Senator Francis N. Pangilinan cited the information shared by the Philippine National Police
(PNP) back in 2013 when the Juvenile Justice Law was being amended that children
commit crimes because they were being backed by syndicates run by corrupt local officials
or men in uniform.
“Going after minors is a convenient way of allowing criminal syndicates and corrupt
government officials and elements of the PNP to get off the hook while making it appear
that government is strong on crime,” said Mr. Pangilinan, one of the authors of the Juvenile
Justice Law often criticized by President Rodrigo R. Duterte.

Senator Nancy S. Binay-Angeles said in a statement, for her part, “We are definitely missing
the point regarding this issue. These manipulated youth are also victims. We need to
strengthen our social systems and not only the penal system.”

“The laws that we have now, maybe there’s room to tweak it, but to go this drastic to lower
the age of criminal liability to nine is crazy, is cruel and to be honest, I think it’s immoral,”
Senator Paolo Benigno A. Aquino IV said in his statement.

Senator Risa N. Hontiveros- Baraquel in a privilege speech on Monday said, “Treating

(children in conflict with the law) as ordinary criminals is one of the types of victimizing,…
pushing them away from rehabilitation,” she said.

For his part, Senate President Pro Tempore Ralph G. Recto said the proposal needed an
“evidence-based legislation,” not on “whims and unproven theories.”

“It should be grounded on facts, supported by studies….We need to read the scholarship
behind the proposed policy. In the absence of any, we may be legislating based on
superstition,” he said in a statement.

“How many 9-year-old drug lords are in the country now? How many 9-year-olds are
involved in kidnap-for-ransom? Are there 10-year-old wanted carnappers? In the records of
the BoC (Bureau of Customs), how many 11-year-olds were caught smuggling shabu?” he
added. — Charmaine A. Tadalan, Camille A. Aguinaldo, and Vince Angelo C. Ferreras
Why it’s perfectly OK to lower the age of
criminal liability to nine years old
After the House of Representatives okays a bill lowering the age of criminal liability from fifteen
years old to nine years old, we ponder the pros of such a move, but not too deeply, because we
aren’t really deep.
ANC-X Staff | Jan 23 2019
 facebook twitter

A nine-year-old is the biggest threat to society. Everyone knows this. At nine, kids still have
baby teeth which makes them dangerous to ice candy, buko pops, and bubble gum. They are
dangerous to Pokémon monsters who they like to chase and catch for shits and giggles. Nine-
year-olds also experience sudden growth spurts which makes them almost dangerous to
doorways. They are almost always dangerous to television sets on medium-height consoles as
well as standing fans that could tip over when they pass—they are, after all, just learning how to
be more coordinated in their gangly, prepubescent bodies. In depressed areas, nine-year-olds
are dangerous to all types of sweet food in convenience stores and sari-sari stores, as well as to
sniffing glue and solvents. Nine-year-olds are a bad lot. They cannot be trusted. They are prone
to being asked by strangers and familiars to be their drug mules, seeing as they do not yet
comprehend what being a drug mule is. They are prone to saying yes. Some might even be
prone to asking if mules were what transported the holy family to the stable where “Papa Jesus”
was born. You see, they are not only childish, nine-year-olds are also naïve.

Barring some pockets of dissent from the country’s best thinkers, as well as local and
international human rights groups, support for an as-yet-unnamed criminal liability bill has been
overwhelming. Said unnamed bill amends RA 10630 (which set the minimum age of criminal
liability at fifteen years old). The unnamed bill, okayed two days ago by the House of
Representatives justice panel, lowers the age of criminal liability from fifteen to nine years old
because, as stated above, nine-year-olds are extremely dangerous. They are among the
demographic of children below the age of fifteen who are responsible for less than 2% of all
crimes committed in the country.  A harrowingly huge statistic. Never mind that they were most
likely commissioned by adults to perform as drug couriers—an act a scant notch higher than
petty theft and sniffing glue—you know, those crimes the do when they act alone.

According to news reports dispatched by The Washington Post last year, President Duterte

“pitched the move of lowering the age of criminal liability to stop a generation of criminals in its
tracks.” The Washington Post irresponsibly left out that the pitch might also be a move to stop a
generation of youths from being educated. We do not need more education, that is not the
solution to climbing out of the status quo; education, in the long run, would prove to be
detrimental to our identity as citizens of a third world nation.

It is also short-sighted for human rights groups to state that nine-year-olds confined in jails or
rehabilitation centers with hardened criminals and delinquents would just educate them more as
criminals. As if criminals were teachers. I mean, let’s see that degree, Jean Valjean. And
President Duterte is as forward a thinker as they get. Pitching the move of lowering the age of
criminal liability to stop a generation of criminals in its tracks would be the best thing to do for
the Filipino youth of today. We say jail them now so they can be cured of their early
crookedness, and won’t grow up as crooks. We have enough of them in Congress.
19 Advantages and Disadvantages of
Juveniles Being Tried As Adults
Some of the cases that involve youth offenders are severe enough that they get transferred into an
adult criminal court proceeding. Most juveniles must be at least 16 years old to be eligible for a
waiver into an adult court, removing the protections that the juvenile justice system offers. Some
minors who have had multiple arrests in the past and qualify on age may also have their case
moved.

When juveniles receive a trial in an adult court, then there are more constitutional protections
that apply to their case. This waiver also creates the possibility of a severe sentence being
imposed for their conduct. It also creates the possibility of having teens serving their time at a
correctional facility meant for adults.

There are several other factors that might create a waiver into adult court for some youth. If past
rehabilitation efforts have not worked or when youth services would need to work with the
individual for a long time, then minors as young as 13 might be eligible for a transfer.

Several advantages and disadvantages of juveniles being tried as adults must be reviewed in each
case to determine if a waiver into adult court is the best option.

List of the Advantages of Juveniles Being Tried as Adults

1. It eliminates the juvenile threshold for consequences associated with severe crime.
Most juvenile offenders can have their records expunged or sealed when they reach the age of
18, 21, or 25 in most countries. When there is a waiver into the adult court, then a conviction
does not become hidden in such a way. Over 300 people are killed each year because of the
actions of an individual under the age of 18 in the United States, which is one of the highest rates
of such activity in the world today. Removing the leniency as a child transitions into adulthood
creates an incentive to avoid criminal conduct in the first place.
2. There are fewer opportunities to commit multiple severe crimes.
Lee Boyd Malvo petitioned the Supreme Court in October 2019 to take another look at his
sentencing after terrorizing the Washington area in 2002. He was with John Allen Muhammad
during a sniping shooting spree that killed 10 people and injured others, paralyzing the region in
fear. Malvo received a sentence of four life sentences for his conduct at the time. When older
youth commit severe and violent crimes, giving them a waiver into the adult court system allows
for society to be safer because they cannot continue to make the same choice.
3. Some children are mature enough to commit a premeditated crime.
A 10-year-old girl was babysitting at a home daycare in Wisconsin. She accidentally dropped the
six-month-old child, which caused the little one to start crying. The girl panicked because she
felt like she was going to be in a lot of trouble, so she decided to stomp on the baby’s head to get
them to be quiet. Officials said that the girl was able to control her behavior, which showed that
there was a specific decision made to prevent consequences when taking these actions.
A judge ruled in March 2019 that the girl was incompetent to stand trial on the automatic charge
of homicide, but that doesn’t mean the case is dismissed. It is just suspended indefinitely until
there is a determination that she will be fit to stand trial. Reviews will happen quarterly. Some
children are more mature than others, which means the justice system must take that into
account.

4. It provides a consistent structure within the justice system.

When children commit horrendous crimes, they can come back into society without the same
notifications that adult offenders must provide. Jasmine Richardson killed her parents and
brother so that she could be with her boyfriend at the time – and she was only 12 years old.
Investigators determined that she had stabbed the young boy in the chest several times while her
older boyfriend, who was 23 at the time of the incident, slit his throat.
Richardson’s sentence was complete after a final review on May 6, 2016. The maximum penalty
she could receive at the time was imprisonment of 10 years. Now she can live anywhere despite
being a convicted triple homicide offender. Waiver into adult courts can help to prevent this
issue.

5. Youth have access to services that aren’t always available in the youth system.
The two primary advantage that juveniles have as a convicted adult offender is that there is
access to schooling and vocational skill development. Youth services will provide some of these
services as well, but from an instructional perspective instead of trying to develop a life skill.
Some adult facilities have better access to mental health support funding than juvenile facilities.
There could be specialized help for addictions, learning disabilities, or other concerns that may
have led to the initial criminal conduct in the first place.
6. It offers society an opportunity to teach children about accountability.
Criminal conduct is not always a learned behavior, but some households can treat it as acceptable
conduct. Illegal activities should always carry consequences, whether that means a parking ticket
is issued or someone stands before a jury to answer charges. Most consequences handed out by
the youth system stop at the age of 21 unless unusual circumstances exist. If Malvo had been
tried in the juvenile system, he would have likely received a sentence of 4 years for his
participation in 10 murders instead of four life sentences.
When there is a structure in place that allows for a waiver into the adult justice system, juveniles
can learn more about accountability. It teaches them the expectations that society has for their
decisions and conduct.

7. Waivers into adult courts treat severe crime in an appropriate manner.

Lionel Tate is the youngest American citizen ever sentence to life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole. When he was 13, he was convicted of first-degree murder for the battering
death of a six-year-old girl. Tate was left alone with her while his mother was babysitting. When
the mother discovered the incident, the teen said that they’d been wrestling and that she’d hit her
head while he had her in a headlock. His conviction was eventually overturned on appeal, which
led him to receive 10 years of probation and one year of house arrest.
The prosecution in the case recommended leniency, but the judge criticized them for charging
the boy in the way they did in the first place. Tate would eventually receive 30 years for
violating his probation and another 10 years to the robbery of a pizza deliveryman.
List of the Disadvantages of Juveniles Being Tried as Adults
1. Juveniles become subject to most adult penalties.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that convictions of juveniles under the age of
18 that involve a life sentence are too severe. That doesn’t mean a sentence can’t be handed
down that involves several decades of time. When a waiver into adult court occurs, then there are
more severe sentences involved in a case when compared to what they would receive at the
youth level.
Judged in adult court don’t have the same range of treatment or punishment options, such as
ordering counseling or imposing a curfew.

2. Adult court doesn’t take into account the maturity of the child.
The physical and psychological development of children makes them prone to making certain
decisions. Teens tend to be impulsive risk-takers because of this issue. When children are
younger than 15, then there may not be an understanding of the consequences of their criminal
conduct. Some kids might not even realize that they have broken the law.
A 9-year-old in Illinois appeared in court in October 2019 to answer to murder charges because
of a fire he set in a mobile home. The boy’s attorney told the judge that the child didn’t
understand the meaning of the words “arson” or “alleged.”

3. It is more difficult to seal an adult criminal record than juvenile ones.

When children commit a crime, their records are usually sealed as they become adults to give
them an opportunity to succeed in life. That means most offenders do not need to list past
convictions once they reach a specific age, like 18 or 21 in most instances.
If a conviction occurs in adult court for a juvenile, then expunging that record becomes more of a
challenge. Their conduct will become available to the public throughout their life unless there are
certain rules or laws in place that allow this action. Several stipulations must be met even when it
is possible that could make it challenging for youth to meet.

4. There are fewer opportunities for rehabilitation in adult court.

Juveniles that receive sentences in adult court are usually given lengthy prison stays or long-term
treatment that restricts their freedom well into their adult years. An incident in Wisconsin where
two 12-year-old girls stabbed their classmate resulted in sentences of 25 and 40 years
respectively at a mental institution. Both juveniles decided to plead guilty in the case. That
means after their time is over in these facilities (when one girl will be 52), there will be few
options available to start a new life.
5. Placing youth in an adult prison cell creates significant risks.
Most youth who receive a lengthy prison sentence as an adult are kept in solitary confinement
until they are old enough to enter the general population. Kalief Browder committed suicide
because of the psychological impact of spending several years by himself in this way. Teens who
receive an adult sentence are almost 40 times more likely to successfully commit suicide while
behind bars compared to adults or juveniles sentenced to a youth facility.
There are currently 10,000 children and teens under the age of 18 housed in adult prisons
throughout the United States.
6. Standardized sentencing occurs in adult courts.
The “get tough” laws of the 1990s imposed strict standardized sentences on those who were
found guilty of the crimes with which they were charged. Judges have little leeway as they
impose a sentence after a conviction or when someone pleads guilty. These rules apply even
when children are as young as 10 after a waiver into adult court occurs. The only exception
involves a life sentence or what would be considered capital punishment. That means a lengthy
sentence for something as simple as stealing a backpack or being in possession of certain drugs
could create long-term consequences for the entire family to manage.
7. Adult sentences cause juveniles to have higher recidivism rates.
When juveniles are being tried as adults, convicted, and sent to an adult prison, then their
recidivism rates increase dramatically. Only 15 states in the U.S. have provided data on this
specific outcome, but the information shows that kids being treated as an adult have a recidivism
rate that is 6 times higher. When juveniles are sentenced to youth facilities instead, adults are two
times more likely to make their way back to jail or prison.
Some youth facilities report a 0% recidivism rate after 12 months and about 40% after five years.
Adults have a rate of 7% after 12 months and up to 80% after seven years from their release date.

8. It places an adult understanding of criminal conduct onto a child.

“In my opinion,” said juvenile defense lawyer Gus Kostopoulos to USA Today, “if the child is so
young that he doesn’t understand court proceedings, he’s probably too young to be charged with
murder.” The last time a child was charged with multiple counts of murder in the United States
was at least 2006 before the 9-year-old was given five charges because of a fire he allegedly set.
The issue with this disadvantage is that adults often try to place their decision-making processes
onto the actions of a child. Prosecutors and investigators see lying or criminal decisions as an
adult response when there may not be an understanding of what is happening to them.

9. Trying juveniles as adults does not provide them with needed services.
Older teens sometimes waiver into the adult system and receive specific services, such as GED
classes, that can help them with the rehabilitation process. Younger children do not receive this
option at all when sentenced to an adult facility. Most jails and prisons are not set up to receive
juvenile offenders in the first place, so there are no youth-specific options available for
correctional officers to use. That means these individuals may have zero opportunities to develop
the critical competencies and life skills that could lead to future successes.
The opposite may actually occur in some situations. When youth are around adult offenders, then
these people become the “replacement” teachers, parents, and idols. Prison can become a place
where youth really learn what it means to become a criminal.

10. More minority youth go into the adult system in the United States than other groups.
Over 80% of the defendants of robbery cases in the Seattle area were under the age of 18
according to data released in 2016. The same report also notes that half of the teens were using a
firearm at the time they committed the crime. When reviewing the racial data from the juvenile
justice report, over 40% of the teens that were given charges were African-Americans despite the
fact that only about 6% of the city is of the same demographic.
When the disparity of criminal conduct is that large, then the root cause of the issue is more
societal than individualized. Locking teens behind bars for a long time might be a “feel good”
strategy that implies a safer society, but it doesn’t solve the problems for the next generation.
11. Juveniles in adult court may not receive a fair jury trial.
Teens and youth who receive a waiver into adult court do receive the benefit of a jury trial. What
they do not get is a panel that is reflective of their age group. When kids as young as 9 can be put
on trial for severe crimes, it is a group of adults that will decide that juvenile’s fate. The United
States requires that you be at least 18 to be empaneled onto a jury, so having someone judge the
content of a case from a different perspective may not result in a fair trial.
12. Transferring juveniles into adult court takes away parental responsibility.
When children are charged in the juvenile justice system, there is a general responsibility of the
parent to find appropriate care and counseling to facilitate rehabilitation. The household may
have civil liabilities as part of that action. When youth receive a waiver into the adult system,
then these requirements can disappear. The state becomes the custodian of the child, which
means there are fewer ways to make victims whole again after the incident.
Conclusion
The advantage and disadvantages of juveniles being tried as an adult are seeing an evolution in
recent years. Teens and youth are being given more chances to get out from behind bars later in
life to create something for themselves. The system is not perfect, and we must still keep young
people away from adult offenders to reduce recidivism rates. If we continue to look at this justice
structure, then we can find more ways to help everyone involved with it.
Pros and cons of expanding legal age barriers
1.3KSHARES91
image: https://www.philstar.com/images/authors/1790869.jpg

AS I WRECK THIS CHAIR - William M. Esposo () - September 29, 2011 - 12:00am

There are pros and cons to carefully weigh in the current discussions in the Senate and in the House
of Representatives on raising the compulsory retirement age for government employees to 70 and
lowering the age when offending minors can be made criminally accountable and jailed. The present
laws impose compulsory retirement for all government employees upon reaching 65 years of age
and minors who are less than 15 years of age cannot be criminally charged and jailed.

Both proposals have merits that deserve public debate and media attention. There is productivity
plus a wealth of experience that are lost in the five years between 65 and 70 years of age. Several
gory and shocking crimes committed by minors under age 15 have convinced some legislators that
those aged 9 to 14 may not be as “innocent” as they seem. Changing landscapes demand
adjustments in laws as well.

Filed as Senate Bill 2797 by Senator Miriam D. Santiago last May, the lady Senator cited State
University (UP) Professor Clarita Carlos as resource person. In an article, Carlos claimed that the
present mandatory retirement age of 65 was determined during the time of Germany’s Otto Von
Bismarck, around 122 years ago when the average life expectancy was 37 years of age. Senator
Santiago also mentioned Professor Ray Fair of Yale University whose paper claimed that many
septuagenarians are at par with 45-year-old counterparts.

Equal opportunity, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, is a compelling argument for raising the
compulsory retirement bar for government employees to 70. Another point raised by Senator
Santiago to support her bill is that the five-year extension would allow the hobbled government
insurance system to recover.

Santiago somewhat conceded in her explanatory note that the feasibility of working for five more
years could apply less to those whose jobs involve physical activity more than skills. The blue-collar
workers suffer from faster wear and tear — aggravated further by lack of funds for proper health
maintenance.

Resistance to the Santiago bill would center on the following issues:

1. The extension further hampers government efforts to provide jobs to those entering the job
market. Retired government employees have benefits due them from the GSIS. Jobless newly-
graduates have nothing to live on.

2. There has to be guarantees that the worker is up to date with advances in systems and
technology. Many Baby Boomers are computer illiterate — making them dinosaurs in this age.

In the private sector, the trend has been to push retirement age even earlier. At age 40, employees,
especially the executives, start to feel insecure, as more companies want a younger workforce. In
my opinion, this is wrong because when you count the mistakes and the cost of the learning curve of
new employees and executives — the price could be too dear to pay.

In the case of minors and their age of accountability as criminals, the proposal to lower the age bar
to nine years of age was prompted by a series of shocking crimes that were committed by minors
younger than 15 years of age and have thus escaped criminal prosecution. In many of these crimes,
it was determined that the under 15 offender premeditated the foul deed.

Lowering the age bar for minors to be criminally prosecuted is heavily premised on changed global
conditions. Opportunities for learning the realities of life have been enhanced by technological
developments — most notably the computer and the mobile phone. Kids can satisfy their interest in
the human reproductive organ by simply visiting easily accessible websites. They can even provide
us seniors and adults with the links where we can view celebrity “skin” displays.

All over the world and here, minors becoming members of violent gangs are already a common
sight. It’s been reported that gangs intentionally recruit minors to do their dirty job — knowing that
being under the age bar makes them immune from criminal prosecution. It’s a serious social
problem.

Those pushing for lowering the age bar for prosecuting minors believe that even those aged nine
today can neither claim to be ignorant of the law nor incapable of discerning what’s right from what’s
wrong. It cannot be claimed therefore that they were victims of their innocence. There is no tinge of
innocence in a 13-year-old gay who planned to kill his boyfriend and commit suicide after the
murder. There is no tinge of innocence in a 12-year-old who volunteered to shoot and kill an
innocent bystander as part of his initiation into the gang. There is no tinge of innocence in 14-year-
old boys who planned and gang raped a neighborhood lassie.

Indeed, the world has become a more dangerous place for life and limb. Minors who should still be
mesmerized by Disneyland have added to the ranks of dangerous criminals. Times change.
Education and information levels change. The age when innocence is lost now happens earlier.
Meanwhile, media pollution proliferates and feeds curious young minds with new ways and means to
commit crime and get away with it.

Our laws have to also adjust to these changes. Otherwise, government ceases to be relevant and
invites change.
in my country Germany young people are not responsible if they are younger than 14
years, between 14 and 17 years a special law for young delinquents must be used. If
the are older, the judge can decide to take the offender as still juvenile or adult.
The idea to free the <14 years old is the assumed non understanding and weighting of
the criminal act.
In the UK a child is considered Doli Incapax up to the age of ten. Between 10 and 14
they can only be held criminally culpable if it can be demonstrated that they were aware
of the inherent wrong in what they were doing.
This is a really difficult question. Children much younger than ten know that an act or
kind of act is wrong, even criminal and they act this out in their play. What is rather more
difficult to demonstrate is their understanding of the gravity of the offences and the
impact they have on individuals and society. We must protect children from crime and
teach them the qualitative value of crime in terms of impact before we judge them.
The Majority age according to Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 is considered to
be 18 years. The criminal laws in our country (Indian Penal Code, 1860, Crimnal
Procedure Code, 1873, The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000, etc) treat all the offender below 18 years of age as juveniles and provide for a
special approach towards the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency and also
provides a framework for the protection, treatment and rehabilitation of children in the
purview of the juvenile justice system.
In India, juveniles up to the age of 18 cannot be tried as adults in cases of serious
crimes such as murder or rape. For those who commit such intolerant acts, the most
severe punishment they will ever receive is a maximum sentence of three years in a
reform facility. The lax nature of this law arguably invites young offenders to get
themselves involved in those crimes. Therefore, these laws need to be more strict and
serious enough so as to create a deterrent effect on these opportunist juveniles.
On 23rd December, 2012, the recent tragedy in India that resulted in the death of a
student who was gang-raped in a moving bus in India's capital, Delhi illustrates the
incongruity of letting a juvenile off the hook when it comes to intolerable crimes. Before
she died, the young 23 year-old allegedly told her mother that the youngest of the six
accused rapists had participated in the most brutal aspects of the rape.
Therefore, there is a need for a stricter punishment for juveniles found guilty of serious
crimes. Many social activists are demanding for a change in Indian laws in this regard
so as to create enough deterrence among the younger generation especially the
juveniles.
In my opinion, the age for the criminal responsibility must be reduced to 15 years as we
witness today that the younger generation in this modern world is maturing very fast the
reason is best known by the scientist. We also see the change in the behaviour of the
young that warrants some care and nourishment by the parents, society and the
Government.
Therefore, it our responsibility to see that our younger generation is brought up in a
suitable environment so that they should not be the reason of extinction of human being
on this earth.
Thanks a lot for the question! Good day!
We have in the UK the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 which prevents the
identification of juveniles (under 18) in the press. This is done on the grounds that
allowing them to be anonymous gives them the opportunity for rehabilitation although
they may still be 'punished' by the courts if they are over 10 years old.
The press in the UK frequently challenge the anonymity orders on the grounds of public
interest and if they can satisfy the court that the young offender is not likely to
rehabilitate then the anonymity is lifted.
The offender under 18 years still is an offender . Keep them away from society by providing
educational programs and rehabilitation is an obligation of the state.
I think we should analyze all the norms relate to the validity of the consent of children
(the age of marriage, to vote in elections, to decide about a medical treatment or to
have sex -including pictures or films related to the sexual activity-, of criminal
responsibility, etc.). If after a serious analysis, including the work of a multidisciplinary
group of experts, we concluded that a person under 18 years understands better the
meaning of certain acts than others, we can make differences in the age to consent.
In Chile a person under 18 years may exceptionally marriage, can't vote in elections,
can decide about a medical treatment with several limitations, can have sex with several
limitations, can't capture images from its own sexual activity, and after the age of 14
years can have criminal responsibility, but in a different system than adults (with lower
criminal punishment, for example).
In Virgina, a child 14 years of age may be tried as an adult. The requirements are contained in the
statute with a link below. Alternatively, they can be adjudicated in Juvenile & Domestic Relations
Court and may be transferred to the Dept. of Juvenile Justice up to age 21.

I think I do not subscribe to the view that the age of criminal responsibility should be
reduced. Because reducing the age means making juveniles more vulnerable to street
bureaucrats.
In Pakistan the position is as under:
1. A child under seven of age bear no criminal responsibility
2. A child under 12 and above seven years of age may incur criminal responsibility, only
if he could form a 'dolus' or in other words if can understand the consequences of his
act.
3. Any person above 12 years of age is liable for criminal responsibility.
Of course also in polish criminal law it can only be a natural person who has reached a
certain stage of development of mental and moral (the age of accountability) and is in
such a mental state in which it is capable of understanding the undertaken action and
directing their actions (sanity). The age limits determined by the law of criminal
responsibility Polish as the completion of 17 years before the commission of an offense
(Article 10 § 1 of the Penal Code).
This limit is, however, reduced in the case referred to in Article commit . 10 § 2 Pecal
Code crimes with a high degree of social harm. The Act provides for criminal liability of
a minor who has completed 15 years before committing such an offense if any previous
educational measures have not yielded the expected results.
The second category of age of criminal responsibility is a juvenile . A young person is
the perpetrator , who at the time of the offense has not completed 21 years (but
graduated 17 years) and at the time of the judgment in the first instance - 24 years .
They are subject to full criminal responsibility.
Criminal liability companies shall not be held criminally liable under the terms of the
code of criminal legal person or other collective creation.
Hello
in Israel the criminal responsibility began at age 12, but prison is only from age 14.
Only 5% of all juveniles who were punished, were sent to jail.
In Israel there is a special criminal law for juveniles, who offers 8 rehabilitation or
treatment ways, without conviction, even if the youth found guilty
It has been the policy of the United States that each individual state may set what is known as the
"age of reason" and therefore when a person may be held liable for any crime they may commit.
There is no guideline at our federal level that is set in stone when it comes to juvenile offenders.
With the crime rate soaring in the late 80's and early 90's, conservative politicians appealed to the
public and to the courts for harsher punishments for juvenile offenders. This is particularly true for
drug offenses because drug dealers often used children as "runners" knowing if they got caught the
punishment they would face would usually be light. Another reason the US increased punishments
and lowered the age threshold in many states is the rise in violent crimes such as murder, rape, and
assault with deadly weapons committed by children under the age of 18. I have read recently that
Piaget has deduced that many people do not fully develop cognitive maturity until their mid twenties
and into their early thirties. This lack of maturity leads young adults to make extremely poor
decisions and they lack self control, a recipe for social deviance often in the form of criminal
behavior. I am including a link for you to access an excellent piece from the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service that may shed some more light on your question.

In Roumania, the Criminal Code provides noncustodial educational measures and

custodial educational measures. The minor who at the time of the offense was aged
between 14 and 18 years will be subjected to non-custodial educational measures.
Custodial educational measures can be taken to the juvenile offender in the following
cases: a) if he has committed a crime for which he was subjected to an educational
measure that was executed or the execution of which began before commiting the
offense for which he was tried; b) if the punishment provided for the offense is
imprisonment for seven years or more or life imprisonment.
Non-custodial educational measures of the Criminal Code: civic internship training,
supervision, weekend commitment, daily assistance. Custodial educational measures:
internment in an educational center, internment in a detention center.

Hi Nelson,
Personally, I am also of the opinion that the age of criminal responsibility should be
reduced. In Sri Lanka, according to Section 75 of the Penal Code a child who is below
the age of 8 is exculpated from all offences while Section 76 allows children between 8 -
12 to be exculpated if such child has not attained sufficient maturity. Although seems to
be a sufficiently fair law, there are other provisions such as Section 113 of the Evidence
Ordinance which creates an irrebuttable presumption that a boy below the age of 12
cannot commit rape. However, such instances have taken place in Sri Lanka and there
has been no recourse. Further, the Sri Lankan law does not provide a sufficient remedy
to minors whose rights have been affected by juvenile offenders. While I am not
supporting the idea that deterrence alone would help prevent crime, I believe that the
age of criminal liability should be reduced for the reasons stated hereinabove. 
In Sweden the Penal Code will deal with anyone from the age of 15 who comitted a
crim, however they will be considered as children until age of 18 and the penalty will be
lower and it is very rare any would up in the normal prison system. The Social Welfare
will be involved too. 
Before age of 15 it is the Social Welfare Office that will interfer and give family and
support. 
The Police will interview also those between 12 and 15 to sort out the crime. The Police
can be asked by the Social Wellfar Officer to carry out first interviews also with younger
children like between 9 and 12. Only gross crime with younger children who are
offenders. 

In India a child below 18 years is tried under THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT. But recently after the Nirbhaya Rape Case of
December, 2013 lots of debate regrading reduction of age of the minor in case of
heinous act  is going on.
My suggestion in this case is that minor should be tried like a adult in cases of heinous
act but not in other cases depending on the situation and environment of the upbringing
of the child.
In the USA, see the case of Roper v. Simmons, a Supreme Court case regarding the
death penalty, which cannot be applied to anyone who was not yet 18 years old at the
time of the crime. See this link to read that case:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/543/551/
However, many juveniles are tried for crimes as adults even though they are young
teenagers. The euphemistic name for this is certification as an adult. In Oklahoma, here
is a summary of that (in my view) ind=sane provision: A child of at least 13 charged with
first degree murder "shall be held accountable for his acts as if he were an adult." A
case against such a child is commenced with the filing of criminal charges. (Note,
however, that except where a child has previously been certified for adult trial or adult
sentencing, the court may order the child certified as a juvenile or youthful offender; see
Reverse Waiver.) The human does not stop evolving until around age 24-25. The last
area to mature is the neocortical areas responsible for judgment and impulse control.
What is criminal is to try juveniles as adults at all, and also to assess the death penalty
for anyone who is not at least 21 and preferably not against anyone 24 or older. I have
spent a lot of my legal career in death penalty defense and have litigated unsuccessfully
to have a young client declared ineligible for death - seeking a Roper exclusion or
Roper extension as well as a constitutional ruling that the age should be raised across
the board. My country is among the most barbaric on earth in this regard.

I concur with Jim. Moreover, a recent line of decisions in the U.S. has established the
principle that juveniles are different from adults developmentally (Graham v. Florida,
Miller v. Alabama, Montgomery v. Louisiana). However, the U.S. Supreme Court did not
find the use of life sentences in these cases unconstitutional. the court ruled instead that
life sentences were only appropriate in a very small number of cases. The decision
authorities are asked to make the individualized judgment of whether the youth's crime
reflected the youth's transient immaturity and the youth's potential for rehabilitation. The
court concluded that life sentences should be limited to juveniles adjudged irreparably
corrupt. s But, legal scholars here questioned whether this criterion can be validly
determined.
I believe we need to move in the other direction towards establishing diminished forms
of moral culpability that extend beyond age 18. However, transfers to adult court remain
automatic for some crimes in some states in the U.S. and as Jim pointed out we are an
outlier in the world community in this regards.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_you_in_favor_of_reducing_the_age_of_criminal_responsibility
_How_is_the_law_in_your_country2

https://www.rappler.com/nation/222682-sotto-hits-critics-lowering-minimum-age-criminal-
responsibility