Age Limits in Youth Justice: A Comparative and Conceptual Analysis

Abstract

In each youth justice system, several age limits exist that indicate what type of reaction can and may be connected to the degree of responsibility that a person can already bear. Civil liability, criminal responsibility and criminal majority are examples of concepts on which age limits are based, but whose definition and impact is not always clear. Especially as far as the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) is concerned, confusion exists in legal doctrine. This is apparent from the fact that international comparison tables often show different MACRs for the same country. Moreover, the international literature often seems to define youth justice systems by means of a lower and upper limit, whereas such a dual distinction is too basic to comprehend the complex multilayer nature of the systems. This contribution therefore maps out and conceptually clarifies the different interpretations and consequences of the several age limits that exist within youth justice systems. To that extent, the age limits of six countries are analysed: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Northern Ireland. This legal comparison ultimately leads to a proposal to establish a coherent conceptual framework on age limits in youth justice.

Psychopathology of Young Terrorist Offenders, and the Interaction With Ideology and Grievances

“…Although there is ‘no bright line for defining youth’ and different upper limits and arguments are used ( 8 , 52 , 53 ), we choose to adhere to the definitions used in criminal law, since we studied convicted terrorists. In juvenile criminal law the age limit is 18 years although most European countries allow for young adults, aged 18–21 years, to be treated differently under criminal law than adults older than 21 years, either by sentencing them under juvenile criminal law or giving leniency under adult criminal law ( 54 , 55 ). Following this line of reasoning we chose 21 years of age as an upper limit.…”

The role of the courts in protecting children's rights in the context of police questioning in Ireland and New Zealand

“…Comparative research in youth justice can be a complex exercise, with many issues relating to national context, history and culture impacting the evaluation of particular approaches and policies in different contexts (see further, Field, 2019;Goldson, 2019;Nelken, 2019); it is, nonetheless, a valuable tool for comparing the broad policy directions taken in different youth justice systems as well as state responses to issues of concern (see, e.g., Cunneen, 2020;Goldson, 2019;Goldson et al, 2021;Hamilton, Fitzgibbon & Carr, 2016;Leenknecht, Put & Veeckmans, 2020;Muncie, 2011). While Ireland and New Zealand take different approaches to youth justice, there are a number of similarities in the youth justice systems and wider penal culture that make a comparison useful (Forde, 2021; see further Hamilton, 2013).…”

Community sanctions in youth justice compared to other youth crime responses: A meta-analysis

“…In various (Western) criminal justice systems, responses to youth crime are differentiated from criminal justice system responses to adult crime (Dünkel et al, 2010;Leenknecht et al, 2020;Winterdyk, 2002). As stated by article 40(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, member countries must treat individuals under the age of 18 who come in contact with the criminal justice system in a manner that justly considers their age, reintegration and future participation in society (UN General Assembly, 1989).…”