As serious juvenile crimes have been occurring continuously, discussions of serious juvenile offenders were taking place such as strengthening of criminal punishment and lowering the age of criminal liability. This study focused on juvenile justice system and responding system for serious juvenile criminals of US, UK, Germany, Norway, and Japan which have similar experiences and tried to find its implications.
In case of Japan, discussions about lowering the age for juvenile law has been on floor as the age of Public Official Election Act was lowered and serious juvenile crimes occurred. Some critics insist that the age of juvenile law should be lowered considering public opinion and the relationships among other related laws. However, on the other hand, there are no practical reasons to lower the age in aspect of the treatment for serious juvenile criminals and related statistics.
US is one of the countries providing the lowest age of criminal liability. The age of criminal liability of US varies from seven to ten years old depending on States. US intervenes to serious juvenile offenders using ‘waiver’ rapidly and positively. There were also discussions about severe punishment in US like other countries, the tendency changed by passing the bill raising the age of criminal liability in New York 2017.
UK has low age compared to other members of EU which is ten years old. However, juvenile cases in 10 to 18 years old are treated in summary trial so that the procedure of juvenile crime is different from that of adults. Although the rate of imprisonment is higher than other european countries, it is not proved that imprisonment has a beneficial influence on reducing juvenile crime.
Germany applies juvenile law to ‘Heranwachsende’ in the age of 18 to 21 and allows them to choose the procedures between juvenile justice and criminal justice. Even though there were discussions about severe punishment in Germany, German decided to improve disciplinary treatments or warning detention in an effective way rather than punish juvenile criminals severely.
Norway provides 15 years old for criminal liability and has characteristic of welfare approach. In particular, Norway intervenes to serious juvenile criminals by strengthening protection and support for them, controls the circumstances not to be swept away by public opinion, and protects the victims at the same time. These responding way of Norway has lots of implications to Korea setting the direction of legislation according to public opinion.
This study tried to examine the real state of serious juvenile offenders. As a results, we concluded that severe punishment for serious juvenile offenders and lowering the age of criminal liability are not the answer. To set the standards of the age in juvenile justice, a comprehensive consideration is needed such as human and material resources for rehabilitation, accordance with basic ideology of juvenile law, physical and mental maturity of juvenile criminals for criminal liability. This study suggests followings based on these research results.
To begin with, conditional penalty assessment should be introduced which makes suspended sentence available to juvenile offenders as Germany. Also, it is needed for youth people in age of 18-21 to choose the procedures between juvenile justice and criminal justice to minimize negative effect of strengthening criminal punishment. Raising statutory punishment should be considered to respond to specific violent crime in a positive way.
Secondly, the standards of intervention should be clarified from the beginning for the substantial intervention to serious juvenile offenders. Also it is needed to make legal basis for releasing with a warning of Police, causes of exclusion for conditional suspended prosecution to prevent overusing it, and minimum standards for imprisonment.
Lastly, to improve juvenile justice procedure it is important to secure rapid handling of the cases by using ‘waiver’ of US, to strengthen educational programs to intervene positively entering juvenile justice, to diversify the protective dispositions, and to establish the standards of penalty assessment for actualization of penalty assessment in juvenile criminal trials.