What Is a Juvenile? A Cross-National Comparison of Youth Justice Systems

Abstract

In this article, the authors analyze cross-national variations in how the category of ‘juvenile’ is defined in criminal law and policy. The authors purposively selected the cases of Argentina, Belize, England/Wales, and Finland to maximize differences in the boundaries of the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility and the Age of Criminal Majority. Legal analysis identified two key factors: (a) the presence or absence of a distinct juvenile justice system, and (b) the stability (or fluctuation) of youth justice laws and age boundaries. These axes of difference and their various configurations across cases have broader implications for advancing children’s rights.

The Voluntary Sector Role in Youth and Young Adult Justice Services: A Comparative Case Study of Finland and England/Wales

“…The law in England/Wales draws sharp legislative boundaries between youth and adults based on chronological age (Abrams et al, 2018). For example, no person under 18 can be housed in a correctional facility alongside an adult.…”

“…Mizel and Abrams, 2018). In most countries, however, individuals who are over age 18 are considered ‘adults’ and are not differentiated in regard to the types of prison-based, probation, parole, or aftercare services they may receive (Abrams et al, 2018). As a growing area of study, more research is needed on how the voluntary sector can play a role in offering developmentally specialized services to young adults.…”

“…The Scandinavian model of criminal justice is known for restricted use of incarceration and humanitarian treatment of prisoners, shorter sentences, and preparation for citizenship upon release (Lahti, 2000; Lappi-Seppälä, 2007, 2012). Although these countries most certainly have differences in the structure and delivery of youth and young adult justice services, as a whole the Scandnavian model has been characterized as more child welfare oriented than punitive (Harrikari and Hautala, 2018); the age of criminal responsibility is high (relative to the international norm of 12; see Abrams et al, 2018), and incarceration rates for minors and adults are far lower than other European countries with similar sized populations (Lappi-Seppälä, 2007). Finland in particular uses a minimum intervention model which largely redirects youth under age 18 to the child welfare system in an overall effort toward decriminalization (Satka and Harrikari, 2008).…”

“…those under age 18) and young adults (i.e. 18–24) are included in this article to align with discursive, operation, and shifting definitions of what is considered ‘youth justice’ in various contexts and systems around the globe (Abrams et al, 2018). Two primary questions drive this study: In these two cases, how are the boundaries between the ‘youth’ and ‘young adult’ justice sector organized?…”

Future of Youth Justice in Japan

“…The age of criminal majority varies between countries. For example, according to Abrams et al (2018; also see Pruin and Dünkel, 2015 for other countries in Europe, and Thomas, 2017 for the United States), who recently examined what defines as young offenders in the justice systems of Argentina, Belize, the United Kingdom, and Finland, the age of criminal majority ranges from 16 to 21 years. In Japan, since its enactment in 1948, the Juvenile Law defines the age of criminal majority as less than 20 years.…”