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:abrams@luskin.ucla.edu;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.