Professional Documents
Culture Documents
April 2, 2019
The Child in the Criminal Justice System
quoted that children placed in the juvenile justice system particularly those deprived of their
liberty are vulnerable to violence2. According to the United Nations International Children’s
Emergency Funds (UNICEF) it is estimated that more than one million children are presently
The controversy pertaining to juveniles in criminal justice system does not particular
refer to the number of children who committed a crime but it is more centered as to whether
should or should not a child be subjected to the application of criminal laws. Internationally,
countries have adopted their own juvenile justice system, defining the criminal age of
responsibility wherein a child can be prosecuted or not. Varying opinions have been raised as to
what is the right age to be set as a standard to determine if criminal laws apply or not. Asian
countries like Hong Kong, Indonesia, Singapore and formerly the Philippines have set a lower
age of criminal responsibility4. In these Asian countries a child can be prosecuted or is not
exempt in criminal prosecution if they are aged as young as seven years old. However,
Philippines through legislative enactment raised the age of criminal responsibility from nine (9)
to fifteen (15) years of age5. This is almost the same as the United States Juvenile Criminal
system where majority of the States’ standard is as young as fifteen to seventeen years of age.
Other states have their own legislations how to deal with child offender while others exempt
To widen the understanding of the current situation of treating young generations in the
child welfare and justice system at present, it is essential to know the past to serve as a frame of
1
Children in the justice system need protection. (2019). Retrieved from
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2012/January/children-in-the-justice-system-need-protection.html
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
4
Editorial, S. (2019). How young can you be locked up in Southeast Asia?. Retrieved from http://sea-
globe.com/southeast-asias-minimum-age-of-criminal-responsibility/
5
Ibid
6
Ibid
reference for present-day dialogue and understanding7. Knowing the past is not only to have a
sense of history but to have a critical perspective of how juvenile justice system are treated and
Despite the good intentions for the care and control of child offenders, the systems that
have been conceived have struggled to address their own needs. Because of different intervening
factors these concepts and systems have evolved through the years9.
In the medieval times, the concept of children is a blur and children are considered as
miniature adults10. Even in other western countries like the United States the concept of
childhood is primarily absent. This kind of thinking was present up until the twentieth century.
Until this era, no formal, unified system for handling delinquent behavior, as such children and
youth are tried and confined as adults11. Nevertheless, juveniles were increasingly seen as less
culpable for their behaviors as well as more amenable to rehabilitative intervention. With these
new concepts, ideas spread about creating a separate justice system, away from adults, that
would focus on treatment and not punishment, and on the needs of the offender rather than the
offending behavior12.
Currently, in the Philippines there is a clamor to lower down the age of criminal
responsibility from fifteen (15) years old to twelve (12) years old where a house bill already
passed its second reading. But how do we really know if that is the right standard to set? Was it
based on scientific findings or was it a whimsical concoction of the legislative’s creative minds?
It must be noted that majority of the laws and jurisprudence in the country are product of
well researched studies that are based on empirical or factual data. This has been seen in the
7
Kolivoski, K. M. (2012). Patterns of justice system involvement among child welfare-involved youth (Order No.
3535607). See page 25. Available from ProQuest Central. (1272368434). Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1272368434?accountid=34574
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid.
10
Id., page 26.
11
Id., page 26.
12
Ibid.
If we are to based it on scientific findings and as pointed out by Dr. Joshua Kleifeld, the
executive functions of children and adolescences are different from adults. The term "executive
functions" refers to a variety of loosely related mental processes and behaviors that develop
longer spans of time13. These higher-order cognitive capacities are evident in activities such as
decision making, planning, and social conduct. Executive functions interact with the more
fundamental brain processes such as arousal, visual perception, long-term memory and linguistic
functions14. There is considerable evidence that executive functions reside primarily in the
prefrontal region, which has dense reciprocal connections with other cortical, subcortical, and
cerebellar region15. Executive functioning is slow to fully develop. It emerges in late infancy,
goes through marked changes during the ages of 2 through 6, and does not peak until around age
25. Adolescents’ limited executive functions are out of sync with their emerging freedom, sense
of autonomy, intense emotions and sexual drive, failing to equip them with the reins needed to
for appropriate restraint and good judgment during this time of temptation16.
Based on these studies it can be assumed that lowering the age of criminal responsibility
and putting children in a criminal justice system is a way of abusing the children. In ascertaining
whether a child is criminally liable thorough studies on the concept and the system must be done
to create a framework that will be compromise with the factual data, rights of the children, the
rights of the victims and the governments right to exercise its police power.
13
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135-168.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
14
Miller, K. J., M.D. (2005). Executive functions. Pediatric Annals, 34(4), 310-7. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/217555327?accountid=34574
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.