Is it Acceptable to Lower the Maximum Age for Application of the Juvenile Act?

For crimes committed by adults, there is a system called minor offence dispositions in which criminal procedures can be closed for minor offence cases after only an investigation by the police without turning them over to prosecution. In addition, of those cases turned over to prosecution, about one-third of them are prosecuted to court and the remaining two-thirds are not prosecuted. Furthermore, even when cases are prosecuted, over half of those cases sentenced to imprisonment with work are suspended, and offenders do not serve their sentence. In other words, there are a great many cases where adults having committed a crime are returned to society without receiving any official disposition or treatment. In contrast, such systems as minor offence dispositions and decisions not to prosecute are not prescribed in the Juvenile Act. All criminal cases will be turned over to family courts and investigated by family court probation officer experts. In addition, as many people know, in amphetamine cases, for example, although the arrest of an entertainer is featured in the mass media to cause a sensation, the entertainer is usually granted a suspended sentence however much they have indulged in taking amphetamines if they are a first offender. In contrast, in the case of juveniles in circumstances similar to the above, most of them are referred to juvenile training schools. A juvenile is not granted probation for the reason that they are a first offender.

Furthermore, the Juvenile Act covers not only crime but violations of the law and pre-delinquency. Pre-delinquency refers to a juvenile that is liable to commit a crime. There are cases where, even when a juvenile has committed no crime, if they are living in certain bad conditions and liable to imminently commit a crime in the future, they may be referred to a juvenile training school to make improvements to such situation.

In this way, dispositions inflicted under the Juvenile Act are sometimes more severe than those inflicted under the Penal Code. This is because, as I mentioned, the basis of the Penal Code is ‘retribution’ but the basis of the Juvenile Act is ‘education.’ Of course, plasticity can operate in both the right direction and the wrong direction. By means of education, efforts are then made to nip the possibility of turning in the wrong direction in the bud to turn juveniles in the right direction.

If the maximum age for application of the Juvenile Act were lowered to the age of 17, many minor and first offenders of the ages 18-19 would be punished by minor offence dispositions or granted a suspended sentence or would not be prosecuted, much less be punished for pre-delinquency. Eventually, there must be a greater risk of such offenders becoming even worse as a result of being returned to society without receiving any disposition or treatment rather than in the case of adults because the offenders are still highly plastic. In other words, lowering the maximum age for application of the Juvenile Act would lead to an increase in crime. Thus, it cannot possibly be said that such lowering is a reasonable step to take for the purpose of ‘protecting society from crime.’

People often have the impression that juvenile training schools are institutions for children which are just a little milder than prisons but these schools are entirely different from prisons. Although correctional education is provided in prisons, in terms of the Penal Code, a prison is basically a place of retribution where an offender receives a criminal disposition as a punishment according to the crime committed. In contrast, a juvenile training school is a place of thorough education. When I was a judge, which is my former position, I inspected one session of an education program in which about 10 juveniles of the ages 17-18 sat in a circle and each of them presented themselves. Any presentations that did not express themselves from an objective viewpoint were sometimes severely criticized and some of them even started to cry. Most juveniles who are referred to juvenile training schools are mentally immature and under the influence of their own qualities and the environments in which they were born and bred. There are quite a few juveniles who only look into their inner selves and think about themselves, and how to create a connection with society, for the first time during a juvenile training school education program. I think that such correctional education is much more severe and harder than continuing with prison work matter-of-factly while in prison. In fact, I saw some defendants who had committed a crime again in order to be sent back to prison after having been released to society because they had become accustomed to life in prison, but I never met a juvenile who wanted to be sent back to a juvenile training school again. Education in prison is totally different from school education.

Referral to juvenile training schools is one of the ‘protective measures.’ Other protective measures include referral to children’s self-reliance support institutions (old reformatories) and probation. Because of the way “protective” is generally used, many people may have the impression that these protective measures are there to protect those juveniles who have committed a crime by isolating them from a society who might criticize them regardless of their age or the details of their crime. However, the essence of these protective measures is education, and moreover, the measures are compulsorily inflicted as a matter of course since they are punishment for committing an act relating to crime. In the Juvenile Act, protective measures refer to such compulsory education dispositions and never mean dispositions to protect juveniles from society. In other words, in order to protect society from crime, an attempt is made to reform juveniles by providing them with such severe education.

Among those in favor of lowering the maximum age for application of the Juvenile Act, there may be many people who are of the opinion that consideration should be shown for victims by inflicting criminal dispositions on the offenders. However, the existing Juvenile Act has established a system whereby a juvenile who has committed a serious crime is made to receive a criminal trial which can inflict a criminal disposition as in the case of adults, which is a so-called reverse referral. In other words, a juvenile at the age of 18-19 who has caused a serious case is likely to receive a criminal disposition even without lowering the maximum age for application of the Juvenile Act. If anything, as I mentioned, it may have a greater influence that juveniles at the age of 18-19 who remain highly plastic and currently receive protective measures for minor offences or pre-delinquencies will not receive criminal dispositions, not to mention protective measures, as a result of lowering the maximum age for application of the Juvenile Act. Of course, not all juveniles will be reformed by providing them with correctional education in juvenile training schools. About 30% of juveniles return to juvenile training schools despite them all never wishing to return. However, juvenile cases are decreasing year by year in Japan. The number of arrested juveniles (for penal code offences) has decreased by 75% from 1983 when it was at its peak. In particular, the number of such atrocious cases as murders, burglaries, rapes, and arson attacks has dropped to under one-tenth of its peak level in 1960. It cannot be said that all of these results have been produced by the Juvenile Act having functioned well. But it may be considered that the existing Juvenile Act has largely contributed to a decrease in juvenile delinquencies.

With regard to juveniles up to the age of 19 who are highly plastic, or are expected to be reformed through education, the existing Juvenile Act adopts a system of reforming such juveniles through thorough education and choosing criminal dispositions for those juveniles with difficulties in reforming through education. In this way, the Juvenile Act has had a great effect on protecting society from crime over a long period of years.

Don’t you think it better not to lower the maximum age for application of the Juvenile Act?

* The information contained herein is current as of November 2016.
* The contents of articles on M’s Opinion are based on the personal ideas and opinions of the author and do not indicate the official opinion of Meiji University.