THE UNIVERSITY OF MANILA

546 MV Delos Santos St. Sampaloc, Manila

LOWERING THE MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY:

CONSEQUENCE FOR JUVENILE CRIME AND EDUCATION

Schedule: TUESDAY AND FRIDAY (12:00 – 1:30)

Submitted by:
“GROUP 5”
CAPARAS, DANIELLA
RAMOS, JOHN WILSON
MACASO, JUSTINE JAE C.
GARCIA, KIMVER LEE O.
LARRACOCHEA, SHANENNE SHAIRAH T.
PRUDENCIADO, MARY JOY GIL
OCENAR, CHARLOTTE

Submitted to:
Dr. Lourdes D. Sabile
Professor
 CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
One of the most contentious issues in juvenile justice policy is determining the minimum
age of criminal responsibility (MACR). There is a large variation around the world on what the
appropriate age is, and even within nations differences exist depending upon the nature of the
crime and the jurisdiction. In Iran the age is different for each sex, with girls being held
responsible at age nine and boys at age fifteen.
The United Nations, through the Committee on the Rights of the Child, stated in a 2007
general comment, “Children’s rights in juvenile justice states that ‘a minimum age of criminal
responsibility below the age of 12 years is considered by the Committee not to be internationally
acceptable.’”
Despite many years of effort there is little consensus around this issue.
In the Philippines, as reported in The Manila Bulletin, there is a movement in the
legislature to lower the MACR from fifteen to twelve. The move has been heavily criticized by
the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council, which oversees implementation of a 2006 reform law
that places the nation in the vanguard of Asian progress on juvenile justice issues. The law, the
first of its kind in Asia, was explicitly passed to bring the country closer to its obligations as a
signatory of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and, “pursuant to the
provisions of the Philippine Constitution and Philippine special laws protecting children,”
supporters of the law contend that the efforts are a “knee jerk” reaction to a rising crime rate.
In the United States, one of only two non–signatory nations of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, the situation is even more complex. The lowest age is six, in North Carolina.
Several states have no set standard, and thus rely on the common law age of seven. In New York,
Reuters recently reported on efforts by the top judge to raise the age from sixteen to eighteen, but
only for certain non–violent offenses.
Infosurhoy outlines a nearly mirror image in Uruguay, where a referendum will be held
to raise the age from sixteen to eighteen. Two opposition parties, supported by victims of crime
and business interests support the measure, but the ruling party opposes it. England has the
lowest MACR, ten, in Western Europe, and is debating raising the age. The age was fourteen,
but after a brutal murder of a toddler by two ten year old in 1993, the age was reduced. Now
those who oppose raising the age point to other heinous crimes by youth.
A policy paper by the Child Rights International Network indicates that two nations have
recently lowered the age, Georgia and Panama. Others are considering lowering the age,
including Argentina, Brazil, France, Hungary, Korea, Mexico, Peru, the Russian Federation, and
Spain. The report states, “CRIN has collected worrying evidence that a growing number of States
in all regions, far from full filling their legal obligations to respect the rights of all children, are
moving backwards in their approach to juvenile justice and criminalizing more and younger
children.”

United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) is deeply concerned about
ongoing efforts in Congress to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility in the
Philippines below 15 years of age. The proposed lowering vary from 9 and 12 years, and goes
against the letter and spirit of child rights.

There is a lack of evidence and data that children are responsible for the increase in crime rates
committed in the Philippines. Lowering the age of criminal responsibility will not deter adult
offenders from abusing children to commit crimes.

UNICEF supports the Philippine government, as a signatory to the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), to ensure that children grow up in a safe environment
protected from crime and violence.

Sadly, lowering the age of criminal responsibility is an act of violence against children. Children
in conflict with the law are already victims of circumstance, mostly because of poverty and
exploitation by adult crime syndicates. Children who are exploited and driven by adults to
commit crimes need to be protected, not further penalized. Instead they should be given a second
chance to reform and to rehabilitate

Detaining children will not teach them accountability for their actions. In order to maximize their
potential to contribute to nation-building, children must grow up in a caring, nurturing and
protective environment. This requires strong parenting support programs and access to health,
education and social services as well as to child-sensitive justice and social welfare systems.

The current Juvenile Justice and Welfare Law, which sets the minimum age of criminal
responsibility at 15, already holds children in conflict with the law accountable for their actions.
It provides them with rehabilitation programs using the framework of restorative, not punitive
justice.

Noteworthy efforts from the judiciary and the executive agencies like the Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Council, Departments of Education and Social Welfare and Development deserve full
support of Congress, particularly on increasing life skills of adolescent learners; establishing an
evidence-based parenting program for babies all the way through adolescence; and decreasing
use of detention and increase use of diversion and community-based mechanisms to
address delinquency. UNICEF calls on the government and civil society to focus on
strengthening the implementation of this law instead of amending it.

The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) that it disagreed with the House
Committee on Justice's attempt to lower the age of criminal liability to 9 years old.

The DSWD instead suggested that the age of liability be lowered to 12 years old, as this was in
accordance with international standards, provided the agenda of the law was to guide the child to
change and be able to return to the community.

In the current law, Republic Act 10630 or the act that strengthened the Juvenile Justice System
of the Philippines, a minor 15 years old or under would be exempt from criminal liability, and
had to be immediately released back to the custody of the parents or the guardians.

However, the minor had to be placed in a community-based intervention program, unless the best
interest of the child was to be placed under the supervision of a youth care facility such as Bahay
Pag-asa.

For those 15 years old but below 18 years old, they too would be exempt from criminal liability
and would be subject to an intervention program unless it could be proven that he/she was able to
discern his/her actions.

Department of Social Welfare and Development Secretary (DSWD) Secretary Judy M.

Taguiwalo today issued the strong opposition of the department against the intent of House Bill
No. 935 (An Act Amending Certain Provision of Republic Act No. 9344, Otherwise known as
the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006: and for Other Purposes and House Bill No. 3973
An Act Lowering the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility Amending for the Purpose
Republic Act 9344 Otherwise Known as the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006”,
introduced by Reps. Tobias Tiangco and Estrellita B. Suansing respectively, to lower the
minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) from fifteen (15) years old to nine (9) years
old.

Sec. Taguiwalo said that the DSWD cannot under circumstance consider endorsing the proposal
to lower the age of criminal responsibility.

“Lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility has never resulted in lower crime rates.
The Philippine experience, and the experience of other countries attest to this fact,” she said.
“There is a need to distinguish between making children responsible for their actions, and
criminalizing them. RA 9344 makes children responsible without making them criminal and
holds them accountable in entirely non-punitive, welfare-based, and education-oriented
measures.”
Sec. Taguiwalo appealed to lawmakers and concerned agencies to give their support for training
and monitoring of prosecutors handling cases of CICL, to promote more child-sensitive and
gender-sensitive standards and processes in the conduct of inquest, preliminary investigation and
prosecution of all CICL cases.

“We will not support lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility. What we want and
more and better support services for Filipino children including the enforcement of laws that
protect and ensure their rights to education. We want a holistic approach to the implementation
of laws protecting children. We want to protect them, not criminalize them. A society that
genuinely cares for children will pour bigger allocations to programs that give children what they
need to learn, be healthy, be intelligent, creative, compassionate and socially aware,” she said.

According to Philippine National Police (PNP) records, the children at risk /children in conflict
with the law, below 9 years old is 91, 9 to 11 years old is 358, 12 to 15 years old is 3,032, above
15 but below 18 is 5,044, undetermined is 1,035 total of 9,561. Some children committed crimes
like theft is 1,813, physical injuries is 1,086 and rape is 862.
Background of the Study
This past few years, we all know that the criminals are getting younger, so as a concern
researcher and out of curiosity we conduct this study about lowering the age of criminal
responsibility. Why the government wants to implement it, the reason why children commit
crimes, and what would be the effect to a child or to a minor who suffered to be in jail.

Statements of the Problem

The research attempts to analyze the problem and consequence of juvenile crime and
education.
Specifically, it sought answers to the following sub questions:
1. What is the demographic profile of the selected respondents according to the following
variables?
1.1 Age
1.2 Sex
1.3 Civil Status

2 Why the government wants to implement, lowering the age of criminal responsibility\
2.1 To minimize crime involving children
2.2 To prevent the rise of crime in the country

3 Why children commit crimes?

3.1 Factors
a..Prenatal exposure
b. Family structure
c. Peer Influence
d. Neighborhood

4. What would be the effect to a child or minor who suffered to be in jail.

4.1 Factors

a. drug and alcohol misuse

b. mental illness
c. family conflict
d. poor education attainment
e. deprivation such as poor housing, homelessness
Significance of the study
This research study is deemed significant to the following stakeholders:
To the parents, this research will give knowledge to them specially to the parents having
a child 18 below.
To the student and out of school youth, this research will help them to know their rights
specially to the minor.
To the future researcher, this research will serve as their reference materials or baseline
data for their future research.

Scope and Limitation to the Study

Definition of terms
Convention
an agreement between countries covering particular matters, especially one less formal than a
treaty.
Explicit-
stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.
Heinous-
(of a person or wrongful act, especially a crime) utterly odious or wicked.
Implementation-
the process of putting a decision or plan into effect; execution.
Jurisdiction-
the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.
Juvenile-
of, for, or relating to young people.
Legislature-
the legislative body of a country or state.
Molestation-
the action of pestering or harassing someone in an aggressive or persistent manner.
Pursuant-
in accordance with (a law or a legal document or resolution).
Signatory-
a party that has signed an agreement, especially a country that has signed a treaty.
Vanguard-
a group of people leading the way in new developments or ideas
Referendum-.
 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

LOCAL LITERATURE

Majority of Filipinos who agree with jailing minors want a higher minimum age of criminal
responsibility (MACR) than what legislators are aiming for, a Social Weather Stations (SWS)
survey found.
SWS president Mahar Mahangas emphasized that respondents were asked about their opinion on
jailing children depending on specific crimes, including raping, killing, acting as drug courier,
snatching cellphones, and stealing food.

The survey results showed public perception is divided when it comes to jailing minors involved
in illegal drugs trade, with 49% agreeing that those who acted as drug couriers should be jailed,
35% disagree, and 4% undecided – or net agreement of 41.
Majority of those who disagree with jailing minors, meanwhile, said that they should be instead
placed under the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) or its
local counterparts.
The SWS survey was conducted among 1,500 adults a distributed equally across the Philippines.
It said there were sampling error margins of ±6% for each study area.

Commissioned by the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), the survey was conducted prior to
the developments on the proposed bill lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility in
Congress.

The bill seeks to lower the MACR from 15 to 12 years old and to send children aged 12 to 18
years old who commit serious crimes to the Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center
inside the nearest youth care facility, also called Bahay Pag-asa.

President Rodrigo Duterte has consistently pushed for the lowering of the minimum age of
criminal liability since his campaign in the 2016 elections. The latest development reflects the
House's efforts to pass Duterte's pet bills, with the backing of Speaker Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo herself.
Former Social Welfare secretary and long-time activist Judy Taguiwalo reiterated in a Facebook
post that lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility ignores scientific and empirical
evidence on a child’s maturity and adult-like decision-making.

The Miriam College community has called on the country’s lawmakers to not lower the
minimum age of criminal responsibility from the current 15 years old.

In a statement, the Quezon City-based college said that they uphold the rights of children
to live and grow in an environment where they can be safe and nurtured, so they can
flourish and become productive members of the country in nation -building.

The United Nations had sent a letter to Senate President Aquilino pimentel and House Speaker
Pantaleon Alvarez Jr., urging both leaders of Congress not to lower the minimum age of criminal
responsibility as this move would only further expose children to violence in prison facilities and
instead lead to further re-offending.

In a letter sent last January, Marta Santos-Pais, UN Special Representative of the Secretary-
General on Violence Against Children (VAC), urged Speaker Alvarez and Senator Pimentel to
focus on improving the implementation of the country’s Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
(JJWA, or Republic Act 9344 of 2006, as amended in 2013). She also cited the JJWA as the
basis to advance the implementation of the commitments made in the ASEAN Regional Plan of
Action on the Elimination of VAC in 2015.

justice to youth offences has negative consequences; including risks of being used in criminal
activities at increasingly younger ages, compromising completion of education and access to
opportunities for vocational skills, and stigmatizing them as criminals and exposing them to
further violence, neglect and social exclusion,” Ms Santos-Pais said.

The House of Representatives’ Sub-Committee on Judicial Reforms under the Committee on

Justice “Research shows that lowering the age of criminal responsibility and punitive criminal s
drafting a bill to lower the MACR from 15 to nine. Child rights NGOs and advocates, along with
some members of the House and Senate and the government’s Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Council, oppose the move; saying law enforcement should focus on cracking down on syndicates
and parents who exploit children to commit crimes.

UNICEF Philippines Lotta Sylwander said: “Why penalize children who are themselves victims
and do not have the maturity to discern right from wrong? In any case the percentage of children
involved in crime is less than 2 percent, punishing and incarcerating children is not going to have
any impact on crime reduction. This will only condemn and damage the children for life instead
of giving them a chance to reform.”

“The underlying and structural factors that bring about child abuse, exploitation and violence
must be addressed first. We need to invest in the full implementation of the Juvenile Justice Law,
which is a much commended law. Then there should be support for parenting programs to deter
at-risk children from committing crimes.”

The UN envoy cited research in neuroscience that shows “the human brain is not fully developed
in its capacity for cognitive functioning and emotional control until well into the period of young
adulthood. When we expose children to toxic stress or violent environments – such as in prisons
– this will have irreversible damages to their brain architecture and create high long-term
financial costs for families and the government.”

This was echoed by Dr. Liane Alampay of the Ateneo de Manila Psychology Department and of
the Psychological Association of the Philippines. Dr Alampay noted that here is a difference
between children’s knowledge of right and wrong; and in acting in accordance with that
knowledge and of what the consequences of their actions would be. “Adolescents below age 15
tend to act on their emotions – including fear, hunger, peer pressure, threats and desperation –
which is why they are pressured to commit crimes by adults, like syndicates or even their
parents.

There is a constant debate on the issue of age limits of juvenile justice systems, especially on the
minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR). Article 40 (3) (a) of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child (CRC)2 directs State Parties to establish a “minimum age below which
children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal law[,]” yet does not
state an exact age.3 To clarify this vagueness, the Committee on the Rights of the Child
(Committee) issued General Comment No. 104 that stated that a minimum age below 12 is not
internationally acceptable and recommended the ages of 14 or 16. 5 The governing law on
juvenile justice in the Philippines is Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006. 6 Said law sets the MACR at 15, and establishes a doli incapax
presumption for the age range of above 15 to below 18 where criminal responsibility may attach
2. Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3 [hereinafter
CRC]. 3. Id. art. 40 (3) (a). 4. Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 10
on Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice, Forty-Fourth Session, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/GC/10 (Jan.
15-Feb. 2, 2007) [hereinafter General Comment No. 10]. 5. Id. ¶ 30. 6. An Act Establishing a
Comprehensive Juvenile Justice and Welfare System, Creating the Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Council Under the Department of Justice, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes
[Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006], Republic Act No. 9344 (2006). 2017] Batang Bata
Ka Pa 261 depending on a child’s discernment. 7 A 2012 amendment to this law introduced a
new condition — children above 12 to 15 who commit serious crimes or are repeat offenders are
automatically considered “neglected” and will be placed in a special detention center called the
Bahay Pag-Asa (House of Hope).8 Recent attempts by legislators are being re-introduced to
amend the law again, particularly to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 9. 9
The question to be answered is to what extent are the MACR and the doli incapax requirement in
the Philippine Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 compliant with international standards.
The scope of this Essay will focus on the Philippine Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006
and the internationally accepted standards with regard to the MACR. To provide an overall
picture, the first Section begins with an overview of the Philippine Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Act of 2006 and focuses on the MACR. The next Section proceeds to discuss the existing
international children’s rights frameworks relating to the MACR and the standards they provide.
In the third Section, these standards will be analyzed with the Philippine MACR to determine
which parts are compliant and which are not. Finally, the Essay concludes by answering to what
extent the MACR set by Philippine law is compliant with international standards and how the
law can be amended to ensure its compliance. II. AN OVERVIEW OF THE PHILIPPINE
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006 A. Brief History: From a Retributive
Approach to a Restorative Approach “You’ll see blood like you’ve never seen in the free world
... so much blood,”10 said a 9-year-old child describing the situation of children in a 7. Id. § 6,
paras. 1-2. 8. An Act Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System in the Philippines, Amending for
the Purpose Republic Act No. 9344, Otherwise Known As the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
of 2006” and Appropriating Funds Therefor, Republic Act No. 10630, § 6 (2012). 9. See, e.g.,
Kathyrn Baylon, Alvarez Files Bill Lowering Age of Criminal Liability, PHIL. DAILY INQ.,
July 6, 2016, available at http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/ 794594/alvarez-files-bill-lowering-age-of-
criminal-liability (last accessed Aug. 10, 2017). 10. Translated from the Bisaya language in the
Visayas region of the Philippines. Bunso is an award winning documentary by Ditsi Carolino,
and produced by UNICEF and Consuelo Foundation. Review: ‘Bunso: The Youngest’, available
262 ateneo law journal [vol. 62:258 Philippine jail as captured in a 2005 documentary, Bunso11
(The Youngest). This child was jailed for stealing goods from a store. Before 2006, a 9-yearold
child in the Philippines could be held criminally responsible according to the 1930 Revised Penal
Code of the Philippines.12 Said child could also be sent to jail and incarcerated with adults.13
There was no comprehensive legislation on juvenile justice in the Philippines and several laws
had to be applied depending on the age and crime committed.14 It was only in the 21st century
that the Philippines decided to devote a criminal system solely for juveniles and, thus, the
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 was introduced. This law incorporated principles of the
CRC, specifically mentioning Article 40 in its declaration of state policies.15 It also introduced
the principles of the best interests of the child and restorative justice, and specifically mandated
that the state apply these principles in all its laws, policies, and programs applicable to children
in conflict with the law.16 It clearly defined restorative justice as a principle which requires a
process of resolving conflicts with the maximum involvement of the victim, the offender[,] and
the community. It seeks to obtain reparation for the victim; reconciliation of the offender, the
offended[,] and the community; and reassurance to the offender that he/she can be reintegrated
into society. It also enhances public safety by activating the offender, the victim[,] and the
community in prevention strategies.17 This law was considered a milestone in children’s rights
legislation in the Philippines. One might say that it was prompted by international pressure to
change the dire situation of children in the harsh justice system. Since the law’s enactment,
children were not allowed to be detained by adults and those who were, were supposed to be
freed. It introduced the term “children in conflict with the law.”18 Diversion became the
standard instead at http://www.variety.com/2006/film/reviews/bunso-the-youngest-1200515 123
(last accessed Aug. 10, 2017). 11. BUNSO: THE YOUNGEST (2005). 12. See An Act Revising
the Penal Code and Other Penal Laws [REVISED PENAL CODE], Act No. 3815, art. 12 (1932).
13. Id. art. 80, para. 7. 14. Revised Rules and Regulations Implementing the Republic Act No.
9344, as amended by R.A. 10630, rule 38.b. 31. The law enumerates these serious crimes as
parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal detention where the victim is killed
or raped, robbery, with homicide or rape, destructive arson, rape, or carnapping where the driver
or occupant is 2017] Batang Bata Ka Pa 265 committed) are automatically deemed neglected and
are mandatorily placed in a special facility within the Bahay Pag-Asa.32 Bahay Pag-Asa is a
youth home for detaining children in conflict with the law and children at risk. The figure below
explains the MACR and the age limits of the new law: Figure 1. The Minimum Age of Criminal
Responsibility and Age Limits Under R.A. No. 10630
FOREIGN LITERATURE
Juvenile crime is one of the nation's serious problems. Concern about it is widely shared by
federal, state, and local government officials and by the public. In recent years, this concern has
grown with the dramatic rise in juvenile violence that began in the mid-1980s and peaked in the
early 1990s. Although juvenile crime rates appear to have fallen since the mid-1990s, this
decrease has not alleviated the concern. Many states began taking a tougher legislative stance
toward juveniles in the late 1970s and early 1980s, a period during which juvenile crime rates
were stable or falling slightly, and federal reformers were urging prevention and less punitive
measures. Some of the dissonance between the federal agenda and what was happening in the
states at that time may have been caused by significant changes in legal procedures that made
juvenile court processes more similar—though not identical—to those in criminal (adult) court.
The main response to the most recent spike in violent juvenile crime has been enactment of laws
that further blur distinctions between juvenile courts and adult courts. States continued to
toughen their juvenile crime laws in recent years, making sentencing more punitive, expanding
allowable transfers to criminal (adult) court, or doing away with some of the confidentiality
safeguards of juvenile court. Many such changes were enacted after the juvenile violent crime
rate had already begun to fall. The rehabilitative model embodied in the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, focusing on the needs of the young offender, has lost ever
more ground over the past 20 years to punitive models that focus mainly on the offense
committed. These pumitive policies have had a disproportionate impact on some minority
groups, particularly black youngsters, an important issue.

Crime policies in the United States have been moving in the direction of treating juveniles as
adults, even though many young people continue to grow up in settings that “fail to provide the
resources, the supports, and the opportunities essential to a healthy development and reasonable
preparation for productive adulthood” (National Research Council, 1993a:2)—settings that put
young people at high risk for delinquency. In 1997, 40 percent of all those living below the
poverty level in the United States were under the age of 18 (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999).
Structural changes in society, including fewer two-parent homes and more maternal
employment, have contributed to a lack of resources for the supervision of children's and
adolescents' free time.

Government policy on juvenile delinquency must often struggle with the appropriate balance of
concern over the healthy development of children and adolescents who violate the law and a
public desire to punish criminals. This tension between rehabilitation and punishment when
dealing with children and adolescents who commit crimes results in an ambivalent orientation
toward young offenders. Criminal acts must be suppressed, condemned, and punished.
Nevertheless, children and adolescents who commit criminal acts must be educated and
supported in a growth process that should be the objective of government policy for all young
people, including young offenders.

A number of cognitive and social features of childhood and adolescence influence the content of
juvenile crime policy. Historically, children under the age of seven have been considered below
the age of reason, and therefore unable to formulate the criminal intent necessary to be held
accountable for criminal offenses. In practice, children younger than age 10 are rarely involved
in the juvenile justice system. Arrests of those younger than 10 years old account for less than 2
percent of all juvenile arrests. By the age of 16 or 17, most adolescents are deemed to have
sufficient cognitive capacity and life experience to be held accountable for intended wrongful
acts. How to deal appropriately with those who commit crimes between the ages of 10 and 17 is
the issue faced in juvenile crime policy. Adolescence is a period of dating, driving, and
expanding social networks—all choices that can produce positive or negative consequences for
the adolescent and the community. Public policies in the areas of education, medical care,
alcoholic beverage control, and juvenile crime reflect beliefs that adolescents have not acquired
the abilities or capacities necessary for adult status. Creating the appropriate public policy for a
period of semiautonomy is no small task (Zimring, 1982). To further complicate the matter,
crime rates peak in mid- to late adolescence, making policy toward young offenders of special
importance.

To best answer the questions of how to deal with young offenders requires knowledge of factors
in the individual, family, social settings, and community that influence the development of
delinquent behavior; of the types of offenses committed by young people; and of the types of
interventions that can most efficiently and effectively prevent offending in the first place or
prevent its recurrence. This study reviews literature in all of these areas to provide an objective
view of juvenile crime and the juvenile justice system in the United States.

CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT: NOT JUST LITTLE ADULTS

What is often missing from discussions of juvenile crime today is recognition that children and
adolescents are not just little adults, nor is the world in which they live the world of adults.
Physical, emotional, and cognitive development continue throughout adolescence. Although
young people can approach decisions in a manner similar to adults under some circumstances,
many decisions that children and adolescents make are under precisely the conditions that are
hardest for adults—unfamiliar tasks, choices with uncertain outcomes, and ambiguous situations
(see, for example, Beyth-Marom and Fischhoff, 1997; Cohn et al., 1995). Further complicating
the matter for children and adolescents is that they often face deciding whether or not to engage
in a risky behavior, such as taking drugs, shoplifting, or getting into a fight, in situations
involving emotions, stress, peer pressure, and little time for reflection.

Young people are liable to overestimate their own understanding of a situation, underestimate the
probability of negative outcomes, and make judgments based on incorrect or incomplete
information (Quadrel et al., 1993). Although adults are also prone to the same misperceptions,
children's and adolescents' lack of experience increases their vulnerability. Quadrel et al. (1993)
found that high-risk adolescents (with legal and substance abuse problems, recruited from group
homes) were more likely than middle-class youngsters to have incorrect information about risks,
while being extremely confident in their information.

Emotions can affect decision making for both adolescents and adults. When people are
experiencing positive emotions, such as excitement, happiness, love (as adolescents often do
when with groups of their peers), they tend to underestimate the possibility of negative
consequences to their actions. When experiencing negative emotions, such as anger, jealousy,
sadness, people tend to focus on the near term and lose sight of the big picture. This is
particularly relevant for adolescents, who have been found to experience wider and more rapid
mood swings than adults (Larson et al., 1980; Larson and Lampman-Petraitis, 1989; Larson and
Richards, 1994).

Studies of young people's understanding of legal processing and the consequences of various
legal choices, such as forfeiting the right to remain silent or to have an attorney, show differences
between those younger and older than about 15 years (Grisso, 1997). Those under age 15 often
misunderstand the concept of a right, in general, and of Miranda rights, in particular. They
foresee fewer alternative courses of action in legal proceedings and tend to concentrate on short-
term rather than long-term consequences (Grisso, 1980; 1981). For example, younger youth
often misconstrue the right to remain silent, believing it means they should be quiet until they are
told to talk. Nor do they completely understand the right to have an attorney present, without
charge, before they talk (Abramovitch et al., 1995; Grisso, 1981). These misunderstandings raise
concerns about children's and young adolescents' competence to stand trial in adult court.
Children and adolescents from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds and those with low
IQs fare worse in understanding the legal process and their rights than do other children and
adolescents of comparable ages (Grisso, 1997). Furthermore, experience with the justice system
does not ensure that young people fully understand the process, their rights, or the implications
of the decisions they make. Both Grisso (1981) and Lawrence (1983) have found that adolescent
delinquents had much poorer understanding of their rights than did adult defendants.

Emerging research using magnetic resonance imaging of the brain demonstrates the cognitive
and emotional differences between adolescents and adults. Children and adolescents process
emotionally charged information in the part of the brain responsible for instinct and gut
reactions. Adults process such information in the “rational” frontal section of the brain (Baird et
al., 1999). Children and adolescents may be physiologically less capable than adults of reasoning
logically in the face of particularly strong emotions. In a recent study, Thompson et al. (2000)
found that the brain continues to develop and change through at least midadolescence, with the
most active parts of the brain changing during development. These new insights on brain
development may have implications for holding children and adolescents criminally responsible
in the same way as adults and raise concerns about initiatives to transfer younger and younger
defendants to adult courts.