Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Whatisajuvenile?Across-nationalcomparisonofyouthjusticesystems
LauraSAbrams
(DepartmentofSocialWelfare)UniversityofCaliforniaatLosAngeles,USA
LauraAMontero
(DepartmentofSocialWelfare)UniversityofCaliforniaatLosAngeles,USA
SidPJordan
(DepartmentofSocialWelfare)UniversityofCaliforniaatLosAngeles,USA
PAPERUNDERREVIEW:PLEASEDONOTCITEWITHOUTAUTHOR’SPERMISSION
Correspondingauthor:LauraSAbrams,DepartmentofSocialWelfare,UCLALuskinSchoolofPublicAffairs,3250PublicAffairsBuilding,LosAngeles,CA90095-1656USAEmail:[email protected];tel:1+310.206.0693.
AbstractInthispaper,theauthorsanalyzecross-nationalvariationsinpoliciespertainingto
theMinimumAgeofCriminalResponsibilityandtheAgeofCriminalMajority.The
authorspurposivelystudythecasesofArgentina,Belize,England/Wales,and
Finlandtomaximizedifferencesinhowtheseageboundariesaredefinedand
implemented.Analysisoflegalhistoryandcurrentpolicyledtotwofocalareas:a)
thepresenceorabsenceofaseparatejuvenilejusticesystem,andb)thestabilityof
ageboundarieswithinthelaw.Thefindingsprovideinsightintohowthecategoryof
“juvenile”isconceptualizedanddelineatedwithindiverseyouthjusticesystems.
Introduction
Thelegaldefinitionof“juvenile”isneitherfixednoruniversalincriminal
justicesystemsaroundtheglobe.Variationsinthelegalcategoriesofa“child”
(typicallyconsideredincapableofcommittinganintentionalcriminalact),a
“juvenile”(deservingofspecialconsiderationandprotections,ofteninaseparate
courtoflaw),anda“youngadult”(culpableanddeservingofthefullforceofthelaw
withsomeexceptionsbasedonageormaturity),reflectdifferencesinhistorical,
political,andeconomicfactorsthatdrivetheevolutionofthelaw.Theestablishment
ofajuvenilecourt,forexample,oftenbothreliesonandproducesviewsthatyoung
peoplearelessculpablethanadults,morecapableofchangeandrehabilitation,and
moredeservingofprotectionfromtheharshandpunitiveconditionsoftheadult
criminaljusticesystem(Tannenhaus,2004).Theagethresholdsattachedtothese
rationalesfordifferentialpunishmentaresignificantastheybecomecodifiedinto
lawandimplementedinpractice(Winterdyk,2015).
Twocentralconceptslendthemselvestocross-nationalstudyofhowthe
categoryof“juvenile”iscraftedbycriminallawandpolicy.TheMinimumAgeof
CriminalResponsibility(MACR)referstotheyoungestageinwhichapersonmaybe
prosecutedforacrimeandinthecaseofanationwithajuvenilecourtalsorefersto
theminimumageofitsjurisdiction.TheAgeofCriminalMajority(ACM)refersto
theageatwhichapersonbecomessubjecttoadultcriminalchargesandpenalties
(Hazel,2008).Insomenations,thelawdoesnotclearlyspecifytheMACRorACM,
whichmayleavetheseparameterstojurisdictionalorjudicialdiscretion;inother
nations,therearefixedboundariespertainingtoeachagethreshold.Whilestudies
havedocumentedthevariationintheMACRandACMworldwide(Cipriani,2009;
Hazel,2008),scantresearchhasinvestigatedcross-nationalvariationinhowthese
boundariesaredefinedandimplementedindiverseyouthjusticesystems.
Inthispaper,theauthorsdescribeandanalyzevariationinfouryouthjustice
systemsbyconsideringtheevolutionofthe“basement”(MACR)andthe“ceiling”
(ACM)ofjuvenilestatusinlawandpolicy.Inthiscasestudy,wepurposivelyselect
thenationsofArgentina,Belize,England/Wales,andFinlandtoillustratecritical
differencesinhowyouthjusticesystemsandtheirboundariesaredefinedand
implemented.Indoingso,weillustratehowthesediversecountriescodifythe
conceptofachild,juvenile,andyoungadultintothelawandelucidatethedynamic
andcriticalnatureofthesedistinctions.Ourmainresearchquestionsareasfollows:
(1)Howare“children,”“juveniles,”and“youngadults”distinguishedacrossfour
diversecriminaljusticesystems?(2)Whataretheimplicationsoftheseage
boundariesandsystemsforthepracticeofyouthjustice?
Backgroundandliteraturereview
Fromaninternationalperspective,thereiswidevariationinhowyouth
(definedhereasindividualsfallingundertheageofmajoritythresholdinagiven
country)areheldresponsibleforcriminalbehavior.Theimplementationofthe
juvenilecourtduringtheperiodofrapidindustrializationintheUSandEurope
reflectedalargermovementovertheprotectionofchildrenfromthepotentially
destructiveforcesofindustry,childlabor,andneglectfulorabsentparents
(Tannenhaus,2004).Initially,thejuvenilecourtsinWesternnationswerecharged
withthedualroleofchildprotectionstemmingfromabuse,neglect,andparental
deathaswellassocialcontrolovercrime(i.e.,theregulationofdelinquencyoften
attributedtopoor,urban,andimmigrantpopulations).Giventhefrequentoverlap
betweenmaltreatmentanddelinquency,thisdualrolehascontinuedtobeadelicate
jugglingactinmostjuvenilecourts(Wynterdynk,2015).Currently,notallnations
haveadesignatedjuvenilecourt,andassuchtheymayhandlechildreninconflict
withthelaweitheroutsideofcriminalcourt(suchasinthechildwelfaresystem)or
weaveinspecialprotectionsforminorsintocriminallawsandnationalorregional
codes.
Evolvinginternationalnormsandhumanrightslawinthelatetwentieth
centuryhaveinfluencedtheage-relatedboundariesofyouthjusticesystems.Most
significantly,theUNGeneralAssemblyadoptedtheUnitedNationsConventionon
theRightsoftheChild(CRC)inNovember1989.Todate,all196UnitedNations
memberswiththeexceptionoftheUnitedStateshaveratifiedtheCRC.TheCRC
includesanumberofguidelinesforthetreatmentofchildreninconflictwiththelaw
withanemphasisonalternativestoformalprosecution,curbingtheuseof
incarceration,andattendingtothebestinterestsofthechild(GoldsonandMuncie,
2012).Article40(1)oftheCRCrecognizesthateverychildallegedoraccusedofa
crimeistobe“treatedinamannerconsistentwiththepromotionofthechild’s
senseofdignityandworth.”Nationstatesignatoriesperiodicallyappearbefore
UnitedNationsCommitteeontheRightsoftheChildtoreportontheirprogressin
implementationthesestandards,aprocessthatisintendedtoleadtohumanrights
protectionsanduniformityinglobalyouthjusticesystems(Cipriani,2009).
However,criticshavenotedthatviolationsoftheCRCwithregardtojuvenilejustice
arenotregularlysanctioned(GoldsonandMuncie,2012).
Minimumageofcriminalresponsibility
UnderArticle40oftheCRC,signatorystatesarerequiredtoestablishor
maintaina“minimumagebelowwhichchildrenshallbepresumednottohavethe
capacitytoinfringethepenallaw.”TheCRCdidnotoriginallyincludeaspecific
MACR,yetin2008theCommitteeontheRightsoftheChildindicatedinitsGeneral
CommentNo.10thatanMACRbelowthethresholdofage12wouldbe
unacceptablebyinternationalstandards.Itfurtheradvisedthatifahigherminimum
agehasalreadybeenestablished,statesshouldnotlowertheirMACRtoage12.In
thefirstmajorpublishedstudyoftheMACR,Cipriani(2009)foundthatsincethe
adoptionoftheCRC40countrieshadestablishedorincreasedtheirMACR.
However,otherreportssuggestthatseveralnations,suchasDenmark,France,and
BrazilhaveactuallyloweredtheirnationalMACRinresponsetoGeneralComment
No.10(CRIN,2017c).
TherearevariousargumentsforandagainstloweringtheMACR.Ontheside
ofsettingahigherMACR(i.e.,greaterthanage12),scholarshavearguedthat
placingyoungchildreninthehandsofthelawisessentiallycriminalizingpoverty
andchildhood;inotherwords,thejuvenilejusticesystemshouldnotbeinvolvedin
handlingproblemsthatoughttobetheresponsibilityofothersocialwelfare
agencies,suchaschildwelfareormentalhealth(ButtsandSnyder,2008).Others
havesuggestedthatchildrenshouldnotbeconsideredtohavethecapacityto
formulateintenttocommitacrimeortounderstandormeaningfullyparticipatein
courtproceedings(WeijersandGrisso,2009).Moreover,fromapublicsafety
perspective,thereisempiricalevidencethatinvolvingyoungeradolescentsor
childreninthejuvenilejusticesystemtendstoexacerbate,ratherthanabatefuture
crime(Petrosinoetal.,2013).
Ontheotherhand,scholarsandpolicymakershavearguedthatalower
MACRcanhelptoensurepublicsafetyandpavethewayforearlierinterventionfor
troubledchildren.Asubstantialbodyofresearchfromlongitudinalworkhasshown
thatearlyonsetofoffendingpredictsahigherriskofdevelopingintoanadult
criminaltrajectory(Farrington,1992).Comparedwithjuvenileswhofirstcomeinto
conflictwiththelawintheiradolescence,childdelinquents(definedbysome
researchersasthoseundertheageof13)areatgreaterriskofbecomingserious,
violent,andchronicjuvenileoffenders(Loeberetal.,2003).Thus,theargumentfor
settingalowerMACRisthatjuvenilecourtinterventionintoanti-socialbehavioris
preferabletonointerventionatall.
Followingthislogic,somecountriesmaintainasecondary,lowertierof
MACRthatappliesonlytomoreseriouscrimes.However,theUNCommitteeonthe
RightsoftheChildhasindicatedthatsecondaryclassificationsarenotcompatible
withtheCRC(Cipriani,2009).IncontraventiontotheCRC,youthjusticesystems
mayalsoabidebytheprincipleofdoliincapax,apresumptionofincapacityfor
personsbelowacertainagethresholdthatcanberebuttedwithprosecutorial
evidenceoftheirsufficientmaturityoroftheirunderstandingofcriminalpenalties.
Underthesecircumstances,itisnotageitselfbutratheranassessmentofindividual
maturitythatmightdetermineifayoungpersonisabletobetriedinajuvenileor
criminalcourt.
Ageofcriminalmajority
Thereisconsiderableconsensusthatinternationalhumanrightslaw
recognizestheminimumstandardforACMasage18(Cipriani,2009).The
InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR)doesnotdefinea
specificACM,butarticulatesinArticle14.4therightof“juvenilepersons”tolegal
proceedingsthat“takeaccountoftheirageandthedesirabilityofpromotingtheir
rehabilitation”(TheUnitedNations,1966).WhiletheICCPRdoesnotdefine
“juvenilepersons”byage,thisstatementhasbeeninterpretedbroadlyasrequiring
statestosetalowerbound(MACR)andupperbound(ACM)(Cipriani,2009).The
CRCdoesnotaddresstheACM,butdoesdefineachildinArticle1as“everyhuman
beingbelowtheageofeighteenyearsunlessunderthelawapplicabletothechild,
majorityisattainedearlier”(UNICEF,2017:2).
Whileage18isthemostcommonACMworldwideforautomatictrialinthe
traditional,adultcriminaljusticesystem,globalpoliciesandpracticesrelatedtothe
permeabilityofACMarediverse,nuanced,andcomplex(Hazel,2008).TheACMmay
bedefinedinstatepolicybyanupperagelimitforjuvenilecourtjurisdiction,a
maximumageforspecialprotectionsorconsiderationswithintheadultsystem,ora
combinationofeach.Innationswithoutadesignatedjuvenilejusticesystem,the
MACRandACMmaybethesameage(Cipriani,2009).Moreover,inmanyjustice
systemsaroundtheglobe,thelawallowforpersonsyoungerthantheACMtoface
trialinadultcourts,levyadultcharges,ordoleoutadultsentences,including
confinementinadultprisons,lifesentences,andeventhedeathpenalty(Hazel,
2008).Theseprocedures,oftenconditionedoncertaintypesofcrimesorrepeat
offenses,introducesignificantsubjectivityandcanbeinterpretedascontravening
internationalhumanrightsstandards(Cipriani,2009).
AtthesametimethattheU.S.hasconstructedlawsandpoliciestolowerthe
ACMoverthepastthirtyyears(insomeU.S.states,allindividualsaged16canbe
automaticallytriedintheadultsystem),ScandinavianandsomeEuropeancountries
haveextendedprotectionsforyoungadultspastthetypicalACM.Thisincludes
provisionsthatallowadultcourtstowaivepersonsbackintojuvenilecourtsorto
facelessseverepenaltiesbasedonbeinga“youngadult,”whichcanincludethose
uptoage21(Hazel,2008).Takentogether,thesetrendsarechangingthenature
anddefinitionofa“juvenile”andmorebroadlytheage-baseddiscoursesofyouth
andcriminalresponsibility.Inthispaper,weexaminetheboundariesoftheMACR
andtheACMthroughanin-depthcasestudyofyouthjusticelawandpolicyinfour
differentcountries.
Method
Themethodologyforthispaperisamultiplecasestudyoffourcountries:
Argentina,Belize,England/Wales,andFinland.Thesepurposivelyselectedcases
heedtheadviceofSeawrightandGerring(2008),whorecommendthatcase
selectionshouldnotberandomandtoselectcasesthatarerepresentativeinnature.
Essentially,thefourcountrieswereselected“tomaximizewhatcanbelearnedin
theperiodoftimeavailableforstudy”(Tellis,1997:2)andtoenabletheexploration
ofdifferenceswithinandbetweencases(Yin,2003).Wedonotinendtodirectly
compareorevaluatethesecountriesagainstastandardornormbutratherto
explorethevariationwithinfourverydifferentyouthjusticemodelsemploying
variousdefinitionsandclassificationsaccordingtoagegroupsandpresumedlevel
ofmaturity.
Inconsideringwhichcountriestoincludeinthecasestudyanalysis,the
authorsbeganbyconsideringvariations(lowandhigh)inthecombinationsof
MACRandACMina2x2casestudyformat.Todoso,wedrewdatafromHazel’s
(2008)reportaswellastheCriminalChildren’sRightsInternationalNetwork
website(CRIN2017a).Theseweretheofficialsourcesofinformationthathelpedto
crafttheinitialorganizingrubric(seeTable1).Theinitialmodelinvestigatedthe
fourcountriesasfollows:BelizewithalowMACRandlowACM,Argentinawitha
highMACRandlowACM,EnglandwithalowMACRandastandardbutrelatively
higherACMcomparedtotheU.S.(wheretheACMisleftuptothestates),and
FinlandwithahighMACRandhighACM(seeTable1).
INSERTTABLE1ABOUTHERE
Datacollectionandreview
Dataweredrawnfromanextensivereviewofscholarlyarticlescoveringthe
legislativehistoryandpracticespertainingtoyouthjusticeineachcountry,reports
fromglobalandregionalorganizationsandagenciessuchasUNICEF,and
consultationwithcriminaljusticeandlegalexpertsineachcountry.Factsand
figuresincludedinthisstudywereobtainedfromworldsourcebooks,government
agencywebsites,andofficialreports.Toaidintheorganizationofthearrayofdata
anddocumentation,theauthorsthoroughlydocumentedatimelineofthelegislative
historyofeachcountrytohighlightmajorpolicychangesimpactinghowjuveniles
areprocessedwhentheycomeintoconflictwiththelaw.Ifapointofclarification
wasneededduetoconflictinginformation,authorsconsultedanexpertinthat
countryandcitedthisinformationas“personalcommunication”withoutidentifying
anyonebynametoprotectconfidentiality.
Briefcountrycomparisons
Argentina,Belize,England/Wales,andFinlanddifferacrossawiderangeof
categoriesincluding,butnotlimitedto,theirsize,populationprofiles,language,
culture,economicdevelopment,andcrimeandincarcerationrates(seeTable1).
TheUKisoneofthemostpopulousnationsinEurope(61million),with
England/Walesequatingto57.9million(OfficeofNationalStatistics,2015).Despite
concernsoverthecountry’ssurprisingvotetoleavetheEuropeanUnionin2016,
theeconomyremainsrelativelyrobust,withanunemploymentrateofjust5.4%
acrosstheUKandahighlevelofprosperity(CIA,2017).Finlandhasasmaller
population(at5.5million)butalsohasathrivingeconomy.Amemberofthe
EuropeanUnionsince1995,Finlandexemplifiesamodernwelfarestatewithahigh
percapitaincomeof$41,100andvirtuallynohouseholdsfallingbelowthepoverty
line(CIA,2017).ArgentinaisasimilarsizeasEngland/Walesinregardtototal
populationyetisamuchlargercountrygeographically.Althoughawealthycountry
relativetotheSouthAmericaregion,theGDPpercapitaof$22,000isfarlowerthan
theUKat$41,200percapita(CIA,2017).Belize,fullyindependentfromtheUK
since1981,isthesmallestandleastdevelopedcountryofthefourstudied,withjust
354,000residents.Ithasaveryhighpovertyratewith41%livingbelowthepoverty
line(comparedto30%inArgentina)andaGDPpercapitaof$8,400.
Criminaljusticerelateddatarevealsomepertinentinformationaboutthe
fourcountries.Table1showsArgentinaandEngland/Walesaresomewhat
comparableintheirratesofyouthincarceration;Finland’srateofincarcerationis
significantlylowerthanallthreeothercountries,andBelize’sisfarhigher.Although
averysmallcountry,Belizehasthehighestrateofoverallincarcerationwithan
imprisonmentrateof449per100,000(Walmsley,2015).AlsoofnoteisBelize’s
relativelylargeyouthpopulation,withalmost21%oftheentirepopulation
comprisedofthoseaged15-24(CIA,2017).ThismaycontributetoBelize’shigh
incarcerationrates,asthatagegroupincludesthepeakageofoffendingandarrests
(UlmerandSteffensmeier,2014).Finally,despiteasizableyouthpopulation,itisof
notethatArgentina’srateofincarcerationisrelativelylowcomparedtoSouth
Americamoregenerally(Walmsley,2015).
INSERTTABLE2ABOUTHERE
Findings
Thisstudysoughttounderstandthemeaningsanddefinitionsconcerningthe
categoryofjuvenileinthelawsandpoliciesoffourselectnations.Weselectedthese
casesbasedonthelowerandupperboundsoftheMACRandACM,usingknowledge
fromreliablesources.Despitetheseinitialintentionsandcarefulcaseselection,the
findingsrevealedthatageboundariesareoftenmorecomplicatedandpermeable
thaninitialappearance.Figure1displaysthetwodrivingthemesthatconstructthe
categoryofthe“juvenile:inlawandpolicy:a)thepresence(orabsence)ofa
separatejuvenilejusticesystem;andb)thestability(orlackthereof)ofage
classificationsinthelaw.Inaddition,asFigure1displays,thenatureoftheMACR
andACMaremuchmorecomplicatedthanwehadinitiallyassumed.Forexample,
Belize’sjuvenilejusticesystemhasagecategoriesthatareofteninfluxand
conflictingstatutesregardingtheMACRandACM.Basedontheseconflicting
statutes,wenotetheMACRinBelizeas“9/12”.ThisissimilartoArgentina,where
wenotetheACMas“16/18”dependingonthestatute.
INSERTFIGURE1ABOUTHERE
AsFigure1displays,twocountriesdonothaveadesignatedorseparate
juvenilejusticesystem.InArgentina,theminimumageofcriminalresponsibilityis
16,makingittheoldestinLatinAmerica.However,thisagecategoryisoften
contestedwithrecentdebateastowhetherjuvenileswouldbebetterservedifthe
ageofcriminalresponsibilitywereloweredto14andaseparatejuvenilejustice
systemmoreformalized(CRIN,2017b;Mendez,2016).Moreover,whileFinland
doesnothaveaseparatejuvenilejusticesystem,theMACRandACMarequite
stable.Nochildrenundertheageof15areheldcriminallyresponsibleinFinland,
andspecialprovisionsandsentencingguidelinesareinplaceforthoseages15to17
and18to20,respectively(thisisalsonotedinFigure1).Intheremainderofthis
findingssection,wechartthehistoricaldevelopmentoftheselawsandsystemsfor
eachofthefourcases.
Argentina:Protectingchildrenwithoutajuvenilejusticesystem
ArgentinaisoneofthelargestandwealthiestcountriesinSouthAmerica.
Argentina’spopulationof44millionisheavilyconcentratedinurbanareas,with
one-thirdofitspopulationresidinginthecapitalofBuenosAires.1816is
recognizednationallyastheyearofArgentina’sdeclarationofindependencefrom
Spain.AbrutalmilitarydictatorshipruledArgentinafrom1976-1983overthrowing
aneraof“Peronistpopulism”(CIA,2017).Argentinaemploysafederalistsystemof
governance,with23provincesandoneautonomouscityofBuenosAires.The
autonomouscityofBuenosAiresservedasthereferencepointforourcasestudy.
Definingchildhood.TheMACRinArgentinais16yearofageaccordingto
Article1ofthe1980RégimenPenaldelaMinoridad(Law22.278).InArticle1,
personsundertheageof16aredefinedasachild,astheyarepresumedtolackthe
capacitytoformcriminalintent.Whiletheycannotbechargedwithacrime,Article
1alsosuggeststhattheymaybedetainedinyouthinstitutionsifthechildis
“abandoned,lackingassistanceinmaterialormoraldanger,orhasbehavioral
problems.”Thepracticeofprotectiveconfinementistracedbacktothe1919legal
doctrineofsituaciónirregular,whichbecameamodel20thcenturypolicyformany
LatinAmericancountries,allowingjudicialdiscretioninorderinginstitutional
placementsforchildrendeemedinneedofstateintervention(Cipriani,2009;
Mendez,2016).
IneffortstobringnationallawintoalignmentwithArgentina’sinternational
obligationsundertheCRC,the2005LawontheIntegralProtectionoftheChild
(Law26.601)expresslyprohibitedtheplacement,internment,ordetentionofa
childinalockedinstitution“ongroundsofeducational,protective,punitive,
tutelary,securityoranyotherpurposes”(Mendez,2016;1).However,humanrights
advocateshavecritiquedthepolicyforfailingtoprovideadistinctivelegal
frameworktorespondtochildrenaccusedofcrimes,asminorscontinuetoface
detention,sometimesforindeterminateperiodsduetothelegacyofArticle1
(DefenceforChildrenInternational,2007;Mendez,2016).Criticsalsoarguethatthe
ongoinguseofjudicialdiscretionresultsinthedeprivationoflibertyin
contraventionofArgentina’sobligationsundertheCDC,includingthedueprocess
rights.FormermemberoftheBuenosAiresSupremeCourtDr.RaúlZaffaronihave
arguedforloweringtheMACRtoage14tohelptoensuretransparencyandyoung
people’sconstitutionalrightstoafairtrialandotherdueprocessprotections(Hill,
2011),whileothershavearguedforalowerMACRtoensureearlyinterventionand
deterrence(O’Boyle,2014).RecenteffortstolowertheMACRtoage14includeda
draftbillin2009(O’Boyle,2014);however,nonewlegislationonMACRhasbeen
passedtodate.
Juvenilejustice.ArgentinasignedontotheCRCin1990.Althoughearlier
versionsofyouthjusticeinArgentinawerepatternedafterthoseintheU.S.,today
Argentinadoesnothaveaseparatejuvenilecourtfor16-and17-year-oldsaccused
ofcriminalactivity.Rather,minorsfacesimilarchargesasadultsincriminalcourts
andcanbesubjecttoindeterminatesentences(MinistryofHumanRightsof
Argentina,2006;DefenceforChildrenInternational,2007).Despitetheabsenceofa
designatedjuvenilecourt,minorsarestillprotectedfromfullcriminalresponsibility
byvariousaspectsofstateandfederallaws,includingafederalrulethatminor
cannotbeincarceratedinadultprisons.AccordingtoUNICEF(2015),therewere
nearly4,000children(ages17orunder)detainedinyouthinstitutionsthroughout
thecountry,themajorityofwhom(89.5%)wereaged16and17(UNICEF,2015:
15).Humanrightsgroupshavecriticizedtheseinstitutionsforfailingtoprovidefor
hygieneorbasicneedsanddeprivingchildrenoftheirlibertyandformixingyouth
accusedofcrimeswiththosemoregenerallydisplayingbehaviordeemedas
uncontrollableorin“moraldanger”(DefenceforChildrenInternational,2007).
Argentinianlawdrawsadditionaldistinctionsbetweenadultsandminors
prosecutedforcrimes.Forexample,Article1ofLaw22.278statesthatpersonswho
areundertheageof18cannotbeprosecutedforcrimesofprivateactionnorcan
theybechargedwithminorcrimessubjecttoprisonsentencesundertwoyears,
fines,orincapacitation.Afederalcourtrulingdeemedlifesentencesforminorsas
unconstitutional,yetthecriminalcodehasnotbeenformallyamendedtoreflectthis
ruling(O’Boyle,2014).InJanuary2017,anarticlepublishedonthewebsiteCRIN
(2017b)statedthatinspiteoftheconstitutionandtheCRCanArgentiniancourt
handeddownlifesentencestofiveyoungmenforcrimescommittedwhenthey
werestillminors(i.e.,under18).Thereisstilldebateinregardtowhetherornot
minorsabovetheMACRcanfacethefullforceofthelawwithfullcriminalcapacity
andintent(CRIN,2017b).
Youngadults.Personsage18andolderareconsideredlegaladultsin
Argentinaasofa2011lawthatloweredthelegaldefinitionofadulthoodfrom21to
18.However,somejurisdictionsinArgentinadelineateacategoryof“youngadults”
(ages18-21)asmoredeservingofspecialprotectionsorleniencyincriminallaw.
BuenosAiresandothercitieshaveestablishedspecialprisonwardstohouseyoung
adultsages18to21,whichareintendedtoprovideprotectionfromabusebyguards
andolderinmatesinthegeneralprisonpopulation(Newman,2010).Designated
rehabilitationandreentryservicesarealsoostensiblyofferedtoyoungadultsin
Argentina,althoughaccordingtosourcesworkingoncriminaljusticereformin
BuenosAires,theactualavailabilityoftheseservicesisrestrictedduetolimited
financialresources(personalcommunication,2016).
Finland:Anage-gradatedviewofculpabilityandpunishment
AprovinceofSwedenfromthe12thtothe19thcenturyandthenRussiaafter
1809,Finlanddidnotgaincompleteindependenceuntil1917(CIA,2017).A
memberoftheEuropeanUnionsince1995,Finlandexemplifiesamodernwelfare
statewithahighpercapitaincomeof$41,000andvirtuallynohouseholdsfalling
belowthepovertyline(CIA,2017).TheFinnishapproachtojusticeislargely
informedbyprevailingculturalbeliefsthatcrime,ingeneral,isasocialproblem
requiringstructuralreformsratherthanpunitiveactionorrestrictionsoflibertyfor
theindividual(Lappi-Seppälä,2006).
LikeArgentina,Finlanddoesnothaveaseparatejuvenilecourt;rather,cases
involvingminorsareheardinadultcriminalcourt(iftheyareoverage15)orthe
childwelfaresystemifachildisinneedofservicesorintervention.Assuch,experts
describejuvenilejusticeinFinlandashaving“onefootintheadultcriminaljustice
systemandanotherfootinthechildwelfaresystem”(Lappi-Seppälä,2011:1).
Rootedinthebeliefthatfamiliesandthecommunityareresponsibleforchildren’s
behavior,thesystemisrehabilitativeinitsnature.The“bestinterestofthechild”
principleguidesdecision-makinginthechildwelfarearena,andyouthsanctioning
incriminalcourtsislargelyframedbyrehabilitativeoptionsandmitigatedcriminal
sanctions(Marttunen,2008;Harrikari,2011).
Definingchildhood.TheMACRinFinlandisdefinedasage15underthe
1940YoungOffendersActanddatesbacktothe1889PenalCodeofFinland.Despite
somedebate,theMACRhasremainedconsistentinFinnishjuvenilejusticepolicy
andpracticesince1940.PoliticaleffortstolowertheMACRemergedfrom1997-
2004withseveralpiecesoflegislationintroducedbyconservativemembersof
Parliament,butthesewereultimatelyunsuccessful(Harrikari,2008).Today,all
mattersrelatedtochildrenunderage15whoarefoundtohaveengagedincriminal
activitiesareheardbyamunicipalchildwelfarecourt,eveninthecaseofactsthat
wouldotherwisebeconsideredseriouscrimes.Childrenunder15maybereferred
tochildwelfareservicesorreferredbyachildwelfarejudgetoasecurechildren’s
homeforanundeterminedlengthoftime.Children’shomesarerunbychildwelfare
agencies,andfamiliesaretypicallyofferedchildwelfareorhealthservices(Hart,
2015).Advocatesandscholarshaveexpressedsomeconcernthatthechildwelfare
courthasmorediscretioninorderingconfinementtogrouphomesormentalhealth
servicesandthatchildreninconflictwiththelawwhoareunderage15maynot
receivedueprocessinthesecircumstances(Hart,2015).
Juvenilejustice.ThereisnoseparatejuvenilecourtsysteminFinland,
howeverthePenalCode,Ch.3,Section4(1)definesaspecialclassofyoungpeople
betweentheagesof15and17.Dependingonthetypeofcrime,casesinvolving15
to17-year-oldsareheardbymunicipal,childwelfare,appellate,orsupremecourt
judges.UnderPenalCodeCh.6.Section12,judgesareauthorizedtowaivecriminal
proceedingsforjuvenilesaltogether.Forthosewhosecrimesareheardbeforea
judge,themostcommonoutcomeisafine,butthoseaged15-17mayalsobe
sanctionedtoconditionalimprisonment(similartoprobation),communityservice,
orunconditionalimprisonment.TheCriminalSanctionsAgency(CSA)supervises
individualswithconditionalsentencesandrunsalloftheprisonandparoleservices
inFinland(Marttunen,2008).
Althoughlackingajuvenilejusticecourt,aspecific“JuvenilePunishment”
wasintroducedasanexperimentinsevenDistrictCourtsin1997(Acton
ExperimentingJuvenilePunishment1058/1996,section1)andexpandedtothe
countryin2005.Thisorderamountstoacommunitysanctioncomparablein
severitytoconditionalimprisonmentforanadult,meaningfrequentmonitoringand
compliancewiththetermsofprobationforfourtotwelvemonthsinordertobreak
“thecycleofcrimeofayoungoffenderandimprovehisorhersocialabilities”
(LinderborgandTolivan,2013:11).Howeverinpractice,thejuvenilepunishmentis
usedveryinfrequentlywithanaverageof9clientsonagivendayin2015(RISE,
2016:12).
SentencinglawsareveryclearforminorsinFinland.Allcriminalsentences
aredeterminate,andminorsaresubjecttoonlyaquarterofanadultsentencewith
a10-yearmaximumsentenceforahomicideconviction.Juvenilescanbesentenced
toconfinementinadultprisons,astherearecurrentlynofacilitiesdesignated
specificallyforminorswhoareconvictedofcrimes.Onlyahandfulofchildrenare
imprisonedinadultfacilities,andtheremustbe“weightyreasons”forthisdecision
(Martunnen,2008).Between2005and2011,theaveragenumberof15-to17-year-
oldsinstatecustodyatanygiventimewasjustsix(Hart,2015).
Youngadults. YoungadultsarelegallydefinedinFinlandasthoseages
18to20undertheCriminalProceduresAct,Act633/2010,andtheImprisonment
Act,Chapter4,Section8.Similartoolderadults,casesinvolvingyoungadultsmay
beheardinmunicipal,appellate,orSupremeCourt,butyoungadultsaresubjectto
sentencesatonlytwo-thirdsoftheseverityofadultsentencesforsimilarcrimes,
includingprisontime.Moreover,youngadultsentencesforfirsttimeoffensesmay
beonlyone-thirdtoone-halftheseverityoftypicaladultsentences.While
imprisoned,youngadultsareoften(butnotalways)housedinseparategroupsor
wardsand,similartothejuveniles,reentryandparoleservicesofferedtoyoung
adultsaresupervisedbyalocalCSAteams(RISE2016).Thecountry’slawswith
regardtoagearethusveryspecificandclearwithregardtoprocedure,
incarceration,andsentencing.
Belize:Ayouthjusticesysteminprogress
BelizeisasmallcountrylocatedinCentralAmericawithapopulationofjust
354,000.(asof2015).TheofficialcountrylanguageisEnglishwithBelize
negotiatingitsindependencefromtheUnitedKingdomin1981(CIA,2017).
AccordingtotheBelizeCrimeandSafetyReport(2015),Belizeconsistentlyranks
amongthetoptenintheworldforhomiciderates.Otherconcernscenteronahigh
foreigndebtburden,unemployment,andeconomicentanglementintheWestern
Hemipsheredrugtrade(PeirceandVeyrat-Pontet,2013).Thecountrybecamea
signatorymemberoftheCRCin1990(UNICEF,2016).Consistentwithmany
developinglegalsystems,discrepanciesexistinregardstoconflictinglanguageof
thelaw.Despiteconsultationswithexperts,wewereunabletocometoaclear
resolutionregardingthesediscrepancies.Inthissection,wenoteareasinthelaw
thatlackclarityorhaveconflictinginformation.
DefiningChildhood.ConflictingstatutorylanguageinBelizereflectsvarying
definitionsofthechild.The1994CrimeControlandCriminalJusticeAct,for
example,includedprovisionsallowingfortheimprisonmentofanyoneolderthan
10yearsold(UNICEF,2000),whilethe1999CriminalCodeexemptspersonsunder
ageninefromcriminalprosecution(Section25(1)).TheCriminalCodefurther
statesthat“Nothingisacrimewhichisdonebyapersonofnineandundertwelve
yearsofagewhohasnotattainedsufficientmaturityofunderstandingtojudgeof
thenatureandconsequencesofhisconductinthematterinrespectofwhichheis
accused”(Section25(2)).Itisgenerallyamatterofjudicialdiscretiontodetermine
whetherthe“sufficientmaturity”thresholdhasbeenmet,andinsomecases
psychiatricassessmentsmaybeconducted(UNICEF,2000).Inpracticechildren
under12areformallyprosecutedinBelizeduetotheratificationoftheCRC;
however,thisisyettobewrittenintothejuvenilecode(AmericaBarAssociation,
2010;personalcommunication,2016).
Juvenilejustice.Conflictingstatutorylanguageandpracticeproducessome
uncertaintyrelatedtotheageparametersofjuvenilecourtjurisdiction.Boththe
JuvenileOffendersAct,Section2,andtheSummaryJurisdictionAct,Section2,define
achildasapersonunder14yearsofageanda“youngperson”asatleast14and
under16yearsold.UnderSection3(2)oftheJuvenileOffendersAct,thejuvenile
courtmayproceedwithanycaseinvolvingpersons“appearingtobeunder16years
old,”asbirthidentificationdocumentsarenotalwaysavailableorreliable.The
lowerboundofthecourt’sjurisdictionisnotaddressedresultinginalackofclarity
betweenthelowerageboundsintheCrimeControlandCriminalJusticeAct(age9),
CriminalCode(age10),andBelize’sobligationsunderinternationallawas
signatorytotheCRC(aminimumofage12).Section3(2)oftheJuvenileOffenders
Actfurthersuggeststhatthecourtmayalsoproceedwithchargesagainstpersons
“oftheageofsixteenyearsandupward”ifthecourtdeterminesitwouldbe
undesirabletoadjournthecase.YettheFamiliesandChildrenAct(2000)andthe
ConstitutionofBelizeextendprotectionstochildrendefinedaspersonsunderage
18(AmericanBarAssociation,2010).TheCertifiedInstitutionsActalsorequires
thatminors(under18)beseparatedfromadults(over18)incustody.ThustheACM
appearstobe16insomelawsand18inothers.Amulti-sectorJuvenileJustice
ReformCommitteeiscurrentlyworkingtoresolvesomeofthesenotable
contradictions(personalcommunication,2016).
Forthosedeemedasminors,casesareprocessedinfamilycourt,juvenile
court,municipalcourt,ortheSupremeCourtofBelize.Thecourtassignment
dependsonthecharge,theavailabilityofjudges,andgeography.WhiletheFamilies
andChildrenActof2003stipulatesthatfamilycourtsshouldhearjuvenilecases,
thesecourtsdonotexistineveryregion.TheJuvenileCodeguidessentencingfor
minors,howeverinifapersonturns18beforetrial,theadultcriminalcode
sentencingguidelinesmayapply(AmericaBarAssociation,2010).Thereareno
juriesforcasesinvolvingminorsunlessthetrialistransferredtotheSupremeCourt
ofBelizeforacapitaloffenseoraco-chargewithanadult.Inthesecases(andonly
inthesecases),theminorisprovidedwithfreelegaldefense.
Minorswhoareconvictedofaviolentcrimeoronremandarehousedinthe
WagnerYouthFacilitylocatedwithintheoneprisoninthecountry.Howeverthere
isnoyouthprisonforfemales,soincontraventiontotheCRC,youngwomenare
housedinthewomen’swardalongsideadultsinBelizeCentralPrison.(Peirceand
Veyrat-Pontet,2013).Minorswhoareonremandfororconvictedoflessserious
crimesareoftensentencedtotheonelockedgrouphomefacilityinthecountry.
Thisfacilityismorerehabilitation-orientedthanWagnerYouthFacility(Peirceand
Veyrat-Pontet,2013).However,asinArgentina,thegrouphomepopulationis
mixedwithchildrenaccusedofcrimesaswellasyoungpeoplewhoseparentshave
askedthestateforassistanceduetouncontrollablebehavior.Criticshaveargued
thatthispracticegoesagainsttheCRCinthatyouthwhomayneedmentalhealth
treatmentorfostercareareheldindetentiontoduealackofalternatives(American
BarAssociation,2010).
Youngadults.TheCriminalCodeofBelizeappliesequallytoallthoseover
theageof18withnospecialprovisionsdefiningaseparatestatusof“youngadults”
orsimilarwiththeexceptionthatpersonsunderage18arenoteligibleforthedeath
penaltyoralifesentence.However,theAmericanBarAssociation(2010)study
foundthatexceptionsallowingforpersonsunder18tobesentencedtolife
imprisonmentinBelizedonotcomplywiththeCRC.Moreover,advocatesnotethat
thecourtsarenotexplicitlyrequiredtoestablishproofofageandthatthis
assessmentoftenbecomesamatterofjudicialdiscretion(AmericanBarAssociation,
2010).BelizeCentralPrisonistheonlyprisonthecountry,andtherearenospecial
protectionsorrehabilitationprogramsofferedtoyoungadults.A“NationalYouth
DevelopmentPolicy”documentpublishedbytheMinistryofEducation,Youth,and
Sports(2012:18)defined“adolescence”asages10to18.However,italsodefined
anoverlappingagecategoryof“youth”asaperson“betweentheagesof15-29who
haspassedthroughthedependentstageofchildhoodandtransitioning[sic]from
adolescencetoadultmaturity.”Thisdefinitionisamoreexpansiveviewofyoung
adulthoodthathasyettobeintegratedintoBelizeancriminaljusticepolicy.
England/Wales:Stabilityalongsidepublicpressures
PartofthelargerUnitedKingdom(UK),wefocusonEngland/Walesasthey
shareacriminaljusticesystemthatisdistinctfromNorthernIrelandorScotland.
England/Waleswasanearlyadopterofseparatejuvenilejusticelegislationwiththe
passageoftheJuvenileOffendersActin1847.Today,Section37ofthe1998Crime
andDisorderActarticulatesthatpreventionisaprincipalaimoftheyouthjustice
system(Blakeman,2013).However,criticsstillattestthatEngland/Walesadheres
toarelativelypunitiveandexpansiveapproachtojuvenilejusticethatmirrorsthe
USsystemofretributivejustice(Goldson,2013).
Definingchildhood.TheMACRinEngland/Waleswasraisedfromage7to
age8bytheChildrenandYoungPersonsActof1933(Ravenscroft,2011)andagain
toage10throughlegislativeamendmentsin1963(Blakeman,2013).Until1998,
youngpeopleolderthanage10butunderage14wereprotectedinthecourtbythe
doctrineofdoliincapax,whichpresumedtheirincapacitytoformcriminalintent,
placingtheburdenonthestatetoovercomethispresumption.Thisprinciple,in
placesinceatleastthelate18thcentury,wasabolisheduponpassageofthe1998
CrimeandDisorderAct(Delmage,2013).Goldson(2013)arguesthat
sensationalizedmediacoverageduringtheBulgercasein1993,inwhichtwo10-
yearoldsweretriedandconvictedofmurderinapublictrial,waspivotaltothis
punitiveturninyouthjusticepolicyinEngland/Wales.Today,casesinvolving
childrenunderage10arehandledinFamilyCourtaschildrenarepresumedtobe
incapableofformingcriminalintent.Whilethereisnocriminalsanctioningfor
thoseunderage10,thesecasesmayresultinreferralstolocalYouthOffending
Teams(YOTs)forfamilyservicesandmayincludeplacementsinchildren’shomes
ormentalhealthfacilitiesbychildwelfareservices(personalcommunication,
2016).
Juvenilejustice.Thestatusofjuvenileforthepurposesofjuvenilecourt
jurisdictionisspecifiedaspersonsfromage10throughage17.Chargesinvolving
juvenilesareheardinyouthcourtswithaspecializedmagistrateunlesstheco-
defendantisanadultand/oragraveoffensewascommitted.Ifsuchconditionsare
met,acaseinvolvingaminormaybeheardinthehighcourt,ortheCrownCourt,
followingproceduresandsentencingguidelinesequivalenttoadults,including
publicjurytrialsandlifesentences(Blakeman,2013).Section90ofthePowersof
CriminalCourtsSentencingAct2000mandatesthatminorsunderage18whoare
convictedofmurder(oranotheroffensesubjecttolifeimprisonment)aredetained
at“HerMajesty'sPleasure,”meaninganindefiniteandindeterminatesentence.For
thosesentencedtosecuredetention,minorsunderage15aremandatedto
children’shomes,whichcanbesecureorsemi-securefacilities(Blakeman,2013).
Youthages15to17maybedetainedawaitingtrialandsentencedtosecureYoung
OffenderInstitutions(YOIs).TheYouthJusticeBoard(YJB)isthedesignated
governmententitytoprovideprobationservicesandsupervisiontoalljuveniles
involvedinthejusticesystem,includingservicesprovidedattheYOIs.However,
minorsareoftentransferredfromtheYJBtotheadultsystemupontheir18th
birthday(Blakeman,2013).
Youngadults.ThePowersofCriminalCourtsSentencingAct2000provides
forjudicialdiscretiontolevyreducedsentencesforyoungadultsbetween18and20
yearsold.SeveralYOIsimprisonyoungadultsbetweentheagesof18-20whereone
sidehousesjuvenilesuptoage18andisoperatedbytheYJBandtheotherside
housesthoseages18and20andisoperatedbyHerMajesty’sPrisonServices
(HMP).Youngadultsmayalsobesentencedtoadultprisons,whichareoperatedby
HMPorprivateprisoncorporations.AdvocatesinEngland/Walesareseekingto
redefine“youngadults”asbetween18and25yearsofageandtocraftpoliciesand
practicestomeettheirspecificneeds(TransitiontoAdulthoodAlliance,2010).Like
inBelizeandArgentina,specificservicesorpoliciesforyoungadultsareaworkin
progress.
Discussion
Inthismultiplecasestudytheauthorssoughttoanswertwokeyquestions:
(1)Howare“children,”“juveniles,”and“youngadults”distinguished,both
discursivelyandpractically,withinthesefourdiversecriminaljusticesystems?(2)
Howdostate-levellawsandpoliciesdriveandreflecttheseconstructions?In
sortingthroughlawandimplementationofjuvenileandcriminaljusticecodes,we
arrivedattwomainaxesofdifference:(1)thepresenceorabsenceofajuvenile
courtsystem;and(2)whetheragecategoriesrelatedtotheMACRandACMare
fluctuatingorstableinthelawandinpractice.
The presence or absence of a juvenile court The juvenile court as an institution historically intended to offer young people a
separate system of justice—one that would be more humane, rehabilitative, and separate
minors from adults in penal facilities (Tannenhaus, 2004). Some nations, like Argentina
and Finland, have a high age of MACR and as such, do not have a standing juvenile court
to deal with criminal matters (they may have a family court, but not a juvenile criminal
court). In these two countries, the definition of the “child” has a higher age threshold and
is therefore presumed too young for prosecution in any justice system. Effectively this
keeps many children out of the justice system altogether, as evidenced by low rates of
juvenile incarceration in both of these countries compared to nations of similar size and
comparable settings within their region.
Ontheotherhand,establishingahighageofMACRraisesquestionsabout
howyoungerchildrenarethenhandledbythestateiftheycomeintoconflictwith
thelaw.Arethesechildrensimplyfunneledintoothersystems,suchasthechild
welfareormentalhealthsystem?CriticsofthesysteminArgentinahavearguethat
sincenoformaljuvenilejusticesystemexistscurrentcourtsoflawfailtoprovide
dueprocessforjuvenilesandrelyheavilyonjudicialdiscretion.Confinementorders
areoftenbasedonadeterminationof“material”or“moral”risk,whicharerather
subjectiveandopentointerpretation(DefenceforChildrenInternational,2007;
Mendez,2016).ThisissomewhatsimilarinFinlandaswellalthoughlessfrequently
appliedduetotheviewofincarcerationasalastresort.Yetstill,intheabsenceofa
juvenilecourtoffacilities,childrenundertheageof15canbesubjecttogrouphome
ordersbyachildwelfarecourtforlongorunspecifiedperiodsoftime(Harrikari,
2008;Hart,2015).Thus,althoughthehigherMACRresultsinfeweryouthbeing
detainedorprosecutedthanincomparablecountries,theabsenceofsuchasystem
mayendupblendingyouthwithadults(inthecriminaljusticesystem)andlackthe
dueprocessrightsandregulationsaffordedinajuvenilecourt.
Thepresenceofajuvenilecourt,however,doesnotguaranteethatall
childrenaretreatedfairlyandaccordingtothehumanrightsstandardlaidoutinthe
CRC.InbothEngland/WalesandBelize,thelowMACRdoesnotcomplywithglobal
humanrightsstandards,andsomeminorsunderage18aresubjecttothefullforce
ofthelaw,includinglongorlifesentences.Thus,whilethejuvenilecourtaddresses
severalgapsorproblemsthatmaybecausedbynothavingsuchastructureintact,
theratesofyouthincarcerationinthosecountriesarequitehighrelativetosimilarly
situatednations.
Fluctuatingversusstableagecategories
WhiletheMACRhaveremainedrelativelystableinFinlandandEnglandfor
overthirtyyears,theseagethresholdsremainatopicoflongstandingdebateand
shiftsinBelizeandArgentina.Instabilityofage-relatedstatusinconflictingpolicies
andpracticescanleaveroomforsomedegreeofarbitrarinessintheadministration
ofyouthjustice.Forexample,inBelizetheofficialMACRis9inthejuvenilecode,
however12istheMACRinpracticeaccordingtomultiplesourceswithinthe
country(personalcommunication,2016).InArgentina,theMACRpolicyisofficially
16,yetinpracticeyouthages14and15canbedeprivedoflibertyasaformof
“treatment”ifyouthisconsideredtobeat“moralormaterialrisk,”avague
distinctionthatisdeterminedsolelybyjudicialdiscretion(DefenceforChildren
International,2007).Onepotentiallessonfromthesefindingsisthatuntilage
categoriesandproceduresarewellestablishedinthelaw,humanrightscriticisms
andviolationsmaycontinuetooccur(AmericanBarAssociation,2010;Mendez,
2016.).
Thetwonationswithrelativelystablecategoriescontendwithadifferentset
ofchallenges.Forexample,inFinlandaminorwhois14andcommitsagravecrime
cannotbechargedwithacrime,whichcouldpotentiallybeproblematicforthe
publicorforvictimsifthissituationweretooccurmorefrequentlyorwithmore
publicoutcry.Moreover,settingtheMACRat10,asinEngland/Wales,maynot
provideenoughleewayforindividualdifferencesincapacityandcompetencytobe
determined.ByremovingtheprincipleofdoliincapaxandsettingtheMACRat10,
net-wideningcanbeaproblematicoutcome(Goldson,2013).Last,whilewehave
foundthesetwocountries(FinlandandEngland/Wales)tohaverelativelystableage
boundariescomparedtotheothertwocountriesexamined,therearestillsomegrey
areasconcerningtheACM.Forexample,inFinlandminorscanstillbeconfinedwith
adults,andtheircasesareheardinthesamecourts;inEngland,graveoffensesare
alsoheardinadultcourtsandindeterminatesentencesarelevied.Henceevenwith
relativestability,thereremainseveralgreyareasaroundinensuringthatyouth
justicesystemscomplywithallaspectsoftheCRC.
Conclusion
Children’srightsareanimportantcomponentofinternationalhumanrights
standards.Understandinghowthesefourverydifferentnationsdelineatethestatus
of“juvenile”inlawandpolicyhelpstounderstandhowtheMACRandACMnotonly
translateintopracticesthatreflectideasaboutcapacityandculpability,butalso
howtheseboundariesproduceconsequencesforchildren’swellbeing.Eachcountry
examinedinthispaperhasitshistoryanduniquelogicsforhandlingchildrenin
conflictwiththelaw.Thereasoningunderlyingthesevariousapproachessheds
lightpotentialroutestorealizetheCRCgoalsrelatedtoyouthjustice,including
recognizingchildren’slessercriminalcapacity,separatingchildrenfromadultsin
prisons,andusingconfinementonlyasalastalternative.Futureresearchcanbuild
ontheseideasbycontinuingtounderstandtheglobalcontoursofyouthjustice
systems,differencesacrossnations,andassociatedconsequencesforchildren’s
rights.
References
AmericanBarAssociation(2010)AnassessmentofjuvenilejusticeinBelize.Report,
AmericanBarAssociation,WashingtonDC:US.
Beloff M and Langer M (2015). Myths and realities of juvenile justice in Latin
America. In: Zimring F, Langer M and Tannenhaus DS (eds) Juvenile Justice in
Global Perspective. New York: New York University Press.
Blakeman I (2013) The youth justice system of England and Wales. 139th International
Training Course visiting experts’ papers. Available at:
www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No78/No78_13VE_Blakeman.pdf (accessed
February 10 2015).
Butts JA and Snyder HN (2008) Arresting children: Examining recent trends in preteen
crime. Report, Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, US.
Central Intelligence Agency (2017) The World Factbook. Available at
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ (accessed 15
September 2016).
CiprianiD(2009)Children’sRightsandtheMinimumAgeofCriminalResponsibility:A
GlobalPerspective.Farham,Surry,England:AshgatePublishing.
CRIN(2017a)Minimumagesofcriminalresponsibilityaroundtheworld.Availableat:
https://www.crin.org/en/home/ages(accessed15September2016).
CRIN (2017b) Argentina: Juvenile life sentences breached human rights standards.
Available at:
https://www.crin.org/sites/default/files/argentinalifeimprisonment.pdf (accessed
14 March 2017).
CRIN (2017c) Juvenile justice: States lowering the minimum age of criminal
responsibility. Available at: https://www.crin.org/en/library/publications/juvenile-
justice-states-lowering-minimum-age-criminal-responsibility (accessed 01
February, 2017).
Defence for Children International (2007) “From legislation to action?” Trends in
juvenile justice systems across 15 countries. Report, Defense for Children
International, Geneva, Switzerland.
Delmage E (2013) The minimum age of criminal responsibility: A medico-legal
perspective. Youth Justice 13(2): 102-110.
FarringtonD(1992)CriminalcareerresearchintheUnitedKingdom.TheBritish
JournalofCriminology32(4):521-536.
GoldsonB(2013)‘Unsafe,unjustandharmfultowidersociety’:Groundsforraising
theminimumageofcriminalresponsibilityinEnglandandWales.Youth
Justice13(2):111-130.
GoldsonBandMuncieJ(2012)Towardsaglobal‘childfriendly’juvenilejustice?
InternationalJournalofLaw,CrimeandJustice40:47-64.
HarrikariT(2008)ExploringriskgovernanceintheNordiccontext:Finnishjuvenile
crimeandchildwelfare.CurrentIssuesinCriminalJustice20:29-42.
HarrikariT(2011).Themakingofthefirstchildwelfareandjuvenilecrimeactsin
Finland1897–1943.SocialWork&Society9(2):1-17.
HartD(2015)Correctionsorcare?Theuseofcustodyforchildrenintrouble.Report,
PrisonersEducationTrust,LondonUK.
HazelN(2008)Cross-nationalcomparisonofyouthjustice.ReportfortheYouth
JusticeBoardofEnglandandWales,London,UK.
HillA(March9,2011)Fourteen:Theageofresponsibility?TheArgentina
Independent.
Availableat:http://www.argentinaindependent.com/currentaffairs/latest-
news/newsfromargentina/fourteen-the-age-of-responsibility/(accessed01
August2016).
Lappi-SeppäläT(2006)Finland:Amodeloftolerance?InMuncieJandGoldsonB
(eds)
ComparativeYouthJustice.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage,pp.177-195.
Lappi-SeppäläT(2011)Alternativestocustodyforyoungoffenders:Nationalreport
on
juvenilejusticetrendsinFinland.ReportfortheInternationalJuvenileJustice
Observatory.Availableat:
http://www.oijj.org/sites/default/files/baaf_finland1.pdf(accessed8
January2017).
LinderborgHandTolovanM(2013)ProbationinEurope:Finland.Report,The
EuropeanProbationOrganization,TheNetherlands(February).
LoeberR,FarringtonDPandPetechukD(2003)Childdelinquency:Early
interventionandprevention.ReportfortheOfficeofJuvenileJusticeand
DelinquencyPrevention,USDepartmentofJustice,(May).
MarttunenM(2008)Juvenilecriminaljustice:Comparativeandcriminalpolicy
perspectiveonsanctioningjuveniles.ReportfortheNationalResearch
InstituteofLegalPolicy.Publicationno.236,UniversityofHelsinki,Finland.
MendezEG(2016)Childhoodwithoutliberty,thepricetobeprotected.Unpublished
paper.
MinistryofJusticeandHumanRightsofArgentinaandUNICEF(2006)Deprivedof
theirliberty:ThesituationofchildrenandadolescentsinArgentina(Privados
deLibertad:Situacióndeniños,niñasyadolescentesenArgentina).Report
preparedforUNICEF,BuenosAires,Argentina(July).
MinistryofEducation,YouthandSportsandUNICEF(2012)NationalYouth
DevelopmentPolicyofBelize.Availableat:
http://www.youthpolicy.org/national/Belize_2013_National_Youth_Develop
ment_Policy.pdf(accessed17March2017).
NewmanGR(2010)CrimeandPunishmentaroundtheWorld[4volumes].Santa
Barbara,CAABC-CLIO,LLC.
O’BoyleB(2014)Legislativeupdate:SouthAmerica’sageofcriminalresponsibility
debate.
Availableat:http://www.as-coa.org/articles/legislative-update-south-
americas-age-criminal-responsibility-debate(accessed15August,2016).
OfficeofNationalStatistics.(2015)PopulationEstimatesforUK,EnglandandWales,
Scotland
andNorthernIreland:Mid:2015.Availableat:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmi
gration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/
latest#uk-population-reached-651-million-in-mid-2015
PetrosinoA,Turpin-PetrosinoCandGuckenburgS(2013).Formalsystemprocessing
ofjuveniles:Effectsondelinquency.No.9ofCrimePreventionResearch
Review.Washington,D.C.:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,OfficeofCommunity
OrientedPolicingServices.
Peirce,JandVeyrat-PontetA(2013)CitizensecurityinBelize.ReportfortheInter-
AmericanDevelopmentBank.TechnicalNoteNo.IDB-TN-572(October).
Availableat:http://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/news/102313.AB-Belize-
IADB.pdf
RavenscroftPL(May2011)“Punishandbedamned”:Judicialdiscretioninjuvenile
courts:ThewelfareandpunishmentdichotomyinEngland,Wales,and
Scotland.AthesissubmittedtotheDepartmentofSocialPolicyoftheLondon
SchoolofEconomicsfortheDegreeofDoctorofPhilosophy.London,UK
RISE(2015)StatisticsoftheCriminalSanctionsAgency2015.Availableat:
http://www.rikosseuraamus.fi/material/attachments/rise/julkaisut-
tilastollinenvuosikirja/hrPPa3Rn7/Statistical_Yearbook_2015_of_the_Crimin
al_Sanctions_Agency_web.pdf(accessedApril1,2016).
Seawright,JandGerring,J(2008)Caseselectiontechniquesincasestudyresearch:
Amenuofqualitativeandquantitativeoptions.PoliticalResearchQuarterly
61:294-308.
TannenhausDS(2004)Juvenilejusticeinthemaking.Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press.
TellisWM(1997)Introductiontocasestudy.TheQualitativeReport3(2):1-14.
TransitiontoAdulthoodAlliance(2010)Youngadultsandcriminaljustice:
Internationalnormsandpractices.Availableat:www.t2a.org/uk/wp-
content/uploads/2011/09/T2A(accessedJune1,2015).
The United Nations. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Treaty Series, 999, 171. UNICEF(2000)AnassessmentofjuvenilejusticeinBelize.Availableat:
http://www.dbzchild.org/uploads/docs/an_assessment_of_juvenile_justice_i
n_belize.pdf
UNICEF(2015)Nationalrelevanceonadolescentsinconflictwiththecriminallaw.
Year2015.“RelevamientoNacionalSobreAdolescentesEnConflictoConLaLey
Penal.Año2015”ReportpreparedfortheSecretaryofChildren,Adolescents,
andFamiliesofArgentina.(December).
UNICEF(2017)Conventionontherightsofthechild.Availableat:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx(accessed
05March2017).
Ulmer JT and Steffensmeier D (2014) The age and crime relationship: Social
variations, social explanations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Walmsley R (2015) World prison P\population list: eleventh edition.
Available at:
http://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/world_priso
n_population_list_11th_edition.pdf
WeijersIandGrissoT(2009)Criminalresponsibilityofadolescents:Youthasjunior
citizenship.In:ReformingJuvenileJustice,US:Springer,pp.45-67.
WynterdykJ(2015)Introduction:Juvenilejusticeintheinternationalarena.In:J.
Wynterdynk(ed),JuvenileJustice:InternationalPerspectives,Models,and
Trends.NewYork:TaylorandFrancis.
YinRK(2003)CaseStudyResearch:DesignandMethods(3rded.).ThousandOaks,
CA:SagePublishing.
YouthJusticeBoard(2016)YouthJusticeStatistics2014/15.ReportfortheMinistry
ofJustice,LondonUK(January).
Table 1. Initial organizing framework MACR(row)ACM(column)
Low High
Low Belize• MACR – 9 years
• ACM–16/18years
Argentina• MACR – 16 years
• ACM–16years
High England/Wales• MACR – 10 years
• ACM–18years
Finland• MACR – 15 years
• ACM – 21 years
Sources:Hazel(2008);CRIN(2017a)
Table2.Countryprofiles(2015)
Country PopulationTotal
GDP(inUSD)
YouthPopulation(ages15-24)
Prisonpopulation(total)
Incarceration(per100K)
YouthIncarcerationTotal(<18)
Argentina
43.9mil 972bil 15.4% 69,060 160 1375
Belize 0.35mil 3.1bil 20.7% 1,545 449 193
England/Wales
57.9mil 2,680bil 12.2%a 85,843 148 1834
Finland 5.5mil 225bil 11.6% 3,105 57 5
Sources:CIA(2017);Walmsley(2015).aThisfigureisbasedontheUKasawhole.
Figure 1: Display of cases by overarching findings
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Dr. Timo Harrikari, Dr. Barry Goldson, Jennifer Peirce,
Fermin Oliveri, Matthew Mizel, and Emilio Mendez for their contributions to the
research and review of this material.
Funding Acknowledgements
This work was funded by a seed grant from the Institute of Inequality and Democracy at
UCLA and a grant from the UCLA Faculty Senate.
Biographical Notes
Laura S Abrams is a Professor of Social Welfare at the UCLA Luskin School of Public
Affairs. She is the author of Compassionate Confinement: A Year in the Life of Unit C
(2013, Rutgers), and Everyday Desistance: The Transition to Adulthood Among Formerly
Incarcerated Youth (2017, Rutgers).
Laura A Montero received her MSW degree with a concentration in social policy and
evaluation from the School of Social Work at the University of Michigan. Currently,
Laura works as an adjunct professor, where she enjoys cultivating the next generation of
social workers.
Sid P Jordan received a degree in law at the University of Victoria and is currently a
doctoral student at UCLA’s Department of Social Welfare. Sid's major research interests
include juvenile justice policy and politics, social work and the law, violence prevention,
and survivor advocacy.